Eagle Forum Alaska

Letters to Senator Huggins

2008-11-18T09:16:00.000-08:00

Below are two letters that have been sent to state Senator Charlie Huggins in response to Huggins move to abandon Republicans and join with Democrats to form a coalition much like the one formed in the last session:

Dear Senator Huggins;

I am very disappointed that you once again decided to form a coalition with the Democrats in the Senate, especially considering that there’s still an undecided senate seat in the Fairbanks area that could establish a definite Republican majority.

The coalition that you lead last year was not good for our state. It produced capitol and operating budgets that both the senate and house members agreed were bloated and publicly admitted that they were relying on the governor's line item veto authority to correct their irresponsible actions.

That wasn't the biggest issue however.

The reason that the bills prohibiting partial birth abortions and parental consent were not even brought to the floor of the senate for a vote was because Senator French blocked them in his committee. You and Senator Green were instrumental in placing Senator French in this position and for reasons that are unclear to me failed to persuade him to release the bills.

When I saw your reaction to Senator Dyson’s floor speech on the subject, I thought that you might have realized the gravity of your mistake. Apparently that wasn’t the case.

As I’m sure you realize from your military service, a soldier wears a uniform to enable his comrades to identify their allies from their opponents. In this case, you are wearing the uniform of the Republican Party but you have aligned yourself with those who oppose our beliefs and principles.

If power is indeed more important than principle to you, I would respectfully ask you to change your party affiliation to the other party so your intent would at least be more transparent. If that isn’t the case, then I hope that you’d reconsider your decision to break rank and re-unite under our banner.

Sincerely,

Mike Prax

Charlie Huggins the Democrat
I would like to Commend Linda Menard for being elected to her Senate seat and for sticking up for her constituents and not joining the democrat coalition
Senator Charlie Huggins was elected to his office, by his constituents, as a conservative Republican. Mr. Huggins has spent every HOUR in Juneau as part of a liberal Democrat
Coalition. This means he has not supported his constituents, that elected him, for one day.
SHAME on you Charlie for NOT supporting the people who elected you, JUST for POWER. The people COUNT, not Power, Charlie.

Donald A. BensonDonald A. Benson

2008-10-16T21:46:00.000-07:00

Dear Alaska Eagles:

This is just in from our friends at RNC for Life:

Friends: Please see below excerpted remarks from Governor Palin at today’s rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania where she talked about compassion and promoting a culture of life in contrast to Barack Obama’s extreme and troubling record on abortion. Earlier this year in Johnstown, Barack Obama said that a woman shouldn’t have to be “punished with a baby.”

Excerpts below:
“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.

Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.

Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.

In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.

But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.” ~ remarks by Governor Sarah Palin, Johnstown, PA on October 11, 2008.

Remember this when you hear that there is no difference in the parties or the candidates!

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Blog Policy

2008-09-12T11:19:00.000-07:00

It still is the policy of Eagle Forum Alaska to post only comments from those who want to discuss issues without name-calling and are willing to put their name on thier comments. We have had a flood of anonymous name-calling as of late. I have been asked why we pulled the 2006 questionnaire from our page and that is your answer. Obviously the left has found this page and delights in posting anonymous bad mouthing of Alaska's Governor and conservatives in general. If you are interested in trashing individuals and if you like hiding your identity, your posts are not welcome here. I am sure there are a number of sites that welcome conservative bashing, this isn't one of them. Have a great day! ~ Debbie Joslin

2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire

2008-09-10T19:03:00.000-07:00

The following questionnaire was sent to all candidates for Governor with their responses listed in the order we received them.
JB = John Binkley (R ) http://www.binkley06.com/
SP = Sarah Palin (R ) http://www.palinforgovernor.com/
FM = Frank Murkowski (R ) http://www.frankmurkowski.com/
MH = Merica Hlatcu (R )
GH = Gerald Heikes (R ) http://www.heikesontherock.com/
TK = Tony Knowles (D) http://tonyknowles.com/
EC = Eric Croft (D) http://www.ericcroft.com/
BL = Bruce Lemke (D)
EB = Eddie Burke (AIP) http://www.eddieburke.com/
DD = Daniel DeNardo (AIP)
DW = DonWright (AIP)

1. Complete the sentence by checking the applicable phrases (you can check more than one).
Abortion should be:
Banned throughout entire pregnancy.
Legal to save the life of the mother.
Legal in case of rape and incest.
Legal if the baby is handicapped.
Legal if the baby has a genetic defect.
Legal in the first trimester.
Legal in the second trimester.
Legal in the third trimester.
Other:__________________

JB: Banned throughout entire pregnancy.
Legal to save the life of the mother.
SP: I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

2. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?
JB: We should always encourage parents to participate in the curricula decisions of our school.
SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
JB: We should not exclude abstinence-until-marriage education programs.
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

4. Will you support efforts to raise or lower the mandatory age of education? Why or why not?
JB: No.
SP: No, again, parents know better than government what is best for their children.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

5. Will you support an effort to expand hate-crime laws?
JB: No.
SP: No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

6a. Do you support the expansion of gambling in Alaska?
JB: No.
SP: No, in so many cases, gambling has shown ill effects on families and as Governor I would not propose expansion legislation.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

6b Would you sign any bills that expand gaming in our state?
JB: No.
SP: No.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

7. Do you support statewide restrictions on the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another?
JB: Yes.
SP: Yes.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

8. Do you support parental choice in the spending of state educational dollars?
JB: As it relates to home schooling, we should give parents options in program spending.
SP: Within Alaska law, I support parents deciding what is the best education venue for their child.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

9. Do you support legislation requiring labor unions to obtain permission from their members before using dues for political purposes?
JB: No Response
SP: Yes, unions represent their workers and as such, should be accountable to them
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?
JB: No. The constitutional amendment was clear to me.
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
JB: No.
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

12. In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected governor?
JB: I will always support and work to strengthen families.
SP: 1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children.
2. Preserving the definition of “marriage” as defined in our constitution.
3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

Closing Remarks by Senators Huggins, Dyson and Green

2008-04-13T21:24:00.000-07:00

4-13-2008
I listened to the floor session in the Alaska Senate this afternoon as Senator Lyda Green and others congratulated themselves on a good, productive session. If you would like to hear the floor session audio, click on here. The remarks by Dyson, Huggins and Green are toward the end at about 57 minutes into the session.

Senator Fred Dyson(R), Eagle River, made remarks and talked about the lessons he learned as a member of the minority. His speech exhibited grace, wisdom and humility. He then talked about HB364, the parental consent for abortion bill. He quoted Justice Carpenetti’s dissent in the opinion handed down by the Alaska Supreme Court last year. He talked about HB301, the partial birth abortion ban. He described the heinous process of killing a partially born baby in this manner. Dyson ended his remarks by noting that these subjects will come up again and he hopes that the other members of the senate will think deeply on these things.

Shortly afterward, Senator Charlie Huggins (R), Wasilla, spoke at length about his values. He commended Senate President Lyda Green(R), Wasilla, on her values. He said he had not voted on a parental consent for abortion bill or on an abortion bill. (This was actually untrue, as his votes this weekend to not move the bills were votes to kill the bills themselves) Huggins spoke at length about his values. He grew up dirt poor and his dad had values, he himself got values at seven years old and passed them down to his children who now have values. He spoke of the military service he, his father and his children have performed. Then he spoke more directly to the point, so I wrote the balance of his remarks down as best I could. They are as follows:

“The insinuation of any vote that I make on that board about abortion or parental consent is false. There’s chivalry that comes with values. I am angry for someone to insinuate that my values in this hall were violated. Anybody wants to talk to me about values or ethics
and I don’t care what you write on a sheet of paper about your ethics, how many Bibles there are. It’s about ethics, it’s about your values and I’m proud of my values and I have not backed away from those and I have not voted in any way to reflect anything other than those values. And I apologize to you for being emotional but I’m sad today because someone insinuates that by implication. That saddens me and for that I apologize for getting emotional.”

The gavel then went down and Senator Lesil McGuire started to speak but was cut off by Senator Lyda Green who then gave her own brief statement. “I have yet to vote against any sanctity of life issue. I will continue to do that.” Then Lesil McGuire made the motion to adjourn the session and so the 25th legislature ended in the Senate without voting on parental consent, partial birth abortion, and the constitutional amendment on gaming as well as many other good bills.

Now, for my remarks:

It was quite obvious that Senator Huggins and Senator Green were disturbed to think that someone might think they had not voted pro-life. They seem to want to be considered pro-life legislators. That is good. I am glad they do want that. However, pro-life voters are politically savvy people. We recognize lip service for what it is and we expect more from pro-life legislators. Having the conviction that abortion is wrong is only part of the puzzle. Former President Bill Clinton even said that abortion should be rare, safe and legal. That was not enough. If our Alaska state legislators want the votes of pro-life voters, they must have not only the conviction but they must follow it up with action. These Senators will try to tell us they did not vote on HB301 and HB364. But they did! They will tell us that if they had rolled the chair and taken the bills from Senate Judiciary Chair Hollis French there would have been chaos. In fact the Masons Rules the legislature operates under provide for that very motion to stop any committee chair from obstructing the will of the body. Senator Green and Senator Huggins may be pro-life to some degree but their pro-life convictions were feeble in comparison to their conviction that Hollis French should have his way as committee chair. In other words, their allegiance was to liberal Senator Hollis French and to the “working majority” and not to the Republican Party Platform and the values it contains. Deny it though they will, actions speak louder than words.

The six “Republicans” who joined with the Democrats to form the “working majority” are Senators Lyda Green, Charlie Huggins, Lesil McGuire, John Cowdery, Gary Stevens and Bert Stedman. Please let them hear what you think of their performance this session.

Senator Lyda Green 877 465 6601 Senator Bert Stedman 877 463 3873
Senator Gary Stevens 800 821 4925 Senator John Cowdery 888 269 3879
Senator Charlie Huggins 800 862 3878 Senator Lesil McGuire 800 365 2995

Here are the five Republicans you can contact to thank:

Senator Con Bunde 800 892 4843 Senator Gene Therriault 800 860 4797
Senator Thomas Wagoner 800 964 5733 Senator Gary Wilken 907 465 3709

This Senator not only VOTED YES TO MOVE THE BILL, he stood up and made the Motion. Please give special thanks to: Senator Fred Dyson 800 342 2199

I know many of you are as disappointed as I am in the outcome of this session. Do we give up? Never! We roll our sleeves up a little higher, and we dig in a little deeper. There is work to be done! Stay tuned.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Testimony for HB353, Public Library Porn Filters

2008-04-01T23:41:00.001-07:00

The following testimony was given by Debbie Joslin, President of Eagle Forum Alaska to the House Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, on Tuesday, April 1, 2008:

My name is Debbie Joslin, I am President, of EFA, a pro-family group with over 1,000 members, and I live in Delta Junction. I am here to support passing HB353 with an amendment to restore the original language of the bill prior to the amendment of 3-25.

First and foremost, my concern is for our children. Allowing our public libraries to become the go-to place for those wishing to view porn, at best puts a thin shellac over a very sleazy industry – the porn industry.

Purveyors of porn specialize in trying to lure our children into their sordid sites and as a parent I want to know that my children are safe when they log onto a public library computer. Children don’t always have the best judgment and we guard them from the sinister motives of online dangers at home but we want porn filters installed in our public library computers. Even when our children don’t mean to go to a porn site, there are those who specialize in childish misspellings to trap our children. Another component to consider where our children are concerned is that the adult who may be viewing porn at the library could be alternately looking at the screen and then at our children, not something this mother of three girls relishes.

Librarians and others have testified that they can police the use of computers without filters, or even better than filters. I don’t think library patrons would be comfortable having the librarian look over their shoulder constantly and I really don’t think they have the time or the logistics to make monitoring by library employees feasible.

Not only that, but the American Library Association has spent millions of dollars fighting porn filters at the national level. They are on record as saying that porn filters are an infringement on first amendment rights. On their website they stated “The ALA today expressed disappointment in today’s very narrow decision (6-3) from the US Supreme Court upholding the Children’s Internet Protection Act.” After a statement like that, do we really want them to tell us, “Honest, you can trust us to monitor these computers ourselves?”

As far as the cost for filters goes, 60% of the state’s libraries already use porn filters, somehow they were able to afford the cost. Certainly the other 40% can.

Filters are used successfully in many places. Many employers use filters, including the state of Alaska. We need to decide what kind of places we want our libraries to become. A safe place where people of all ages can get information or a good book or do we want them to become places where those wishing to view hard porn or even child pornography can come knowing that their sordid trail leads not to a computer registered to their name but to a public computer. This is not an issue of free speech; patrons can easily ask the librarian to turn off the filter if they wish.

Monitoring by librarians is not enough. HB353 needs to be restored to the original language to require filters to be put in place and passed immediately.

Rep. LeDoux Fails to Uphold Party Platform

2008-03-28T21:45:00.000-07:00

At my urging, many people have contacted the offices of Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux and Rep. Paul Seaton to inquire about their failure to to vote YES on HB301, the partial birth abortion ban. Their NO vote shows a lack of respect for the values of Alaskan Republicans and a calloused disregard for the lives of innocent unborn babies. The correspondence below was sent to me by receipients of our Eagle Forum Alaska Legislative Alert. Rep. LeDoux's shallow response did not get past their eagle eyes! We must continue to hold Rep. LeDoux and Rep. Seaton accountable for their poor voting records.
Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Message to Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux

2008-03-28T21:36:00.000-07:00

Message to Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux:

My husband and I are appalled that you opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions-- simply a brutal form of infanticide. A partial-birth abortion is NEVER necessary for the health of the mother. In fact it is a dangerous procedure for her, and a cruel and deadly procedure for the child-- who often could survive, if she (or he) were not stabbed in the back of the neck by the abortionist as she enters the world outside her mother's womb.

JM
Anchorage, Alaska

From: Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux
Date: 03/28/08 10:36:56
Subject: RE: HB 301 - Partial Birth Abortions

Thank you for writing and expressing your heartfelt opinion. I oppose partial birth abortions except when necessary to protect the life or physical health of the mother. It is my understanding that there are certain rare circumstances where a woman could suffer severe damage if this procedure is not used.

Unfortunately the bill which I voted against did not have an exception for the physical health of the mother. I introduced an amendment to allow the procedure when it was necessary for the physical health of the women. This amendment failed and thus I could not in good conscience vote for the bill.

Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
District 36
Capitol, Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 465-2487
(907) 465-4956 (fax)

Reply to message from Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux:

I have worked for the protection of unborn children for 35 years. There is NEVER a circumstance when the partial birth abortion procedure would be better for the health of the mother. Believe it! A health of the mother exception in other state laws has allowed abortions for no reason at all. The infamous late-term abortionist in Boulder, Colorado, Warren Hern, has boasted that he can certify ANY pregnancy a risk to the mother's health. To leave this kind of determination to the benefiting physician is to sacrifice many, many healthy babies.

Have you considered changing your party affilliation? Or do party platform positions mean nothing to you? The national Republican Party has taken a position of protecting unborn children from abortion since 1976 at their Michigan convention.

Thank you nonetheless for the prompt reply.

JM
Anchorage, Alaska

Posts Must be Signed

2008-02-29T07:59:00.000-08:00

Our policy is to publish only posts that are signed. We received an anonymous comment last night and will not be posting it but we do appreciate the author's comment. Thank you.
Debbie Joslin

Abortion Kills Women Too

2008-02-23T23:34:00.000-08:00

The big story this week is the sad report of the young woman in the U.K. who committed suicide after aborting her 8 week old unborn twin babies. I saw the story on LifeNews and have had four or five other people send me a copy. This young woman's death has proved the painful point I made recently in my January 22 speech; many women are having abortions because someone else wants them to. If you are a woman who is pregnant, do what you really WANT to do. Have your baby. If there are people in your life who pressure you to abort, don't listen to them. Look in the phone book for a Crisis Pregnancy Center where you can get help to carry your baby to term. And, by the way, adoption is a loving option too.
Debbie Joslin

A Very Tiny Miracle

2008-01-25T00:35:00.000-08:00

I am a Girl Scout leader in my small town of Cordova, Alaska. I was preparing to take a group of girls and moms to a World Girl Scout Center high in the Alps in Switzerland in May 2006. We would spend a few days in England and 10 days hiking in the Alps, and learning about Swiss culture.

We were preparing to leave in a week and I was also pregnant and starting to miscarry. What happened next was an amazing event of small proportions.

I hoped that I wouldn't miscarry on the plane so I prayed. Two days before we left, the baby came out but in an unexpected way. A large chewing gum-like bubble came out. I picked it up and saw movement in the bubble. I opened the bubble and there was a small baby! The body was about 2 1/2 inches long. It had a square-shaped head with eyes and mouth a little bigger than the head of a pin. It was approximately 6-7 weeks old.

The most unusual part of this awesome event was that the baby was crying. I could hear no sound but the mouth was moving in the exact motion that a crying baby does. My heart was full of love towards this tiny newborn of mine.

The baby had little arm buds. I happened to touch them with the rounded end of a tiny pair of scissors and he grabbed them and held on to them and continued crying his silent little cry. What a sweet miracle of life I was witnessing!

His eyes were staring at me the entire time while he was crying. The eyelids were not developed but the head was turned directly towards my face.

The lower part of his body seemed fused into the placenta. After a while, this little one left us and immediately, the little form turned into a small pool of fleshy blood. You would have never know there was a baby once there.

I think God gave me this precious little one to demonstrate how small human beings can be and still have ability to cry, see, feel & interact with others.

I remember telling this story to some of our traveling group while we were in a B & B in London. I was thankful that I didn't miscarry on the plane and I was thankful to see a tiny part of God's creation.

Jennie Grimwood

Presidential Preference Poll - February 5th

2008-01-18T19:26:00.000-08:00

February 5th will be Super Tuesday in Alaska. Registered Republicans, and those willing to register Republican, will be allowed to pledge their vote for their favorite candidate or vote unpledged (undecided). What this will do is determine how many votes each candidate gets at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN September 1-4.

Polling places will be set up around the state of Alaska on February 5th and the voting will be from 4:30 to 8:30 pm. To find out where the nearest polling place is to you, log on to http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/ or call party headquarters at 276-4467. In addition to the presidential preference poll, districts will be holding their district conventions. To get the specifics of YOUR district convention go to http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/ and scroll down to your district number. It should tell you a date, location, time and delegate fee if there is one. Attend you district convention and let the person in charge, either the District Chair or District Secretary, know you want to be a delegate to state convention and to national if possible. They may ask you to pay your state delegate fee at that point, it is $225.

One reason that many good people don’t get involved in the party nomination process and conventions is that they have never done so before and feel they would be in over their heads. At every convention fully half of the delegates (or more) are participating for the first time. You would not be the only first timer. Being a convention delegate at the district or state, or even national level, is not as complicated as you might guess. This year more than ever the final outcome of the presidential nomination process is in flux.

I know some of you have decided to distance yourselves from the party because of the scandals caused by some legislators and some of the party leadership. I must point out that leaving the party will not fix what is wrong. No, if you believe the Alaska Republican Party needs to be purged of corruption and scandal, and you believe in our conservative party platform, you need to attend your district convention and volunteer to be a delegate at the state convention. This will accomplish several things:

1) By attending your district convention/presidential preference poll, you will have a voice in deciding how many votes each candidate receives at the Republican National Convention Sept. 1-4. Delegates from Alaska will be apportioned according to the percentage of votes their candidate received February 5. For instance, if Giuliani receives 50% of the votes on February 5, then half of the delegates to national convention will have to be pledged to vote for Giuliani. Voters will also have the option of voting “unpledged.” If 50% of the votes are unpledged, then half of the Alaska delegates to the National Convention will also be unpledged and able to vote for any candidate they choose at the national convention. Voters will be able to choose from the seven candidates who have paid their fee and registered to be candidates in Alaska. Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter have qualified for the Alaska ballot by collecting petition signatures and submitting a filing fee.
2) If you attend your district convention on February 5 you will be eligible to vote for your district chair and other district party officers. The district chair represents your voting district on the Alaska Republican Party State Central Committee (SCC). In districts where the elected Representative is also a Republican, the district also elects a “Bonus Vote” to sit on the SCC. These officers are very important; they conduct party business at the district level and represent their districts at the state level. They are also involved in promoting candidates for the legislature and putting together a list of names for the Governor to choose from when there are vacancies in the legislature.
3) Last but not least, you will be eligible to attend the Alaska Republican State Convention held in Anchorage March 13-15 at the Captain Cook Hotel. Delegates will vote for National Committeeman and National Committeewoman and conduct other party business including updating party rules and platform. Currently the party platform is pro-family, pro-life and a document conservatives can be proud of. That can change if good conservatives fail to show up at the state convention.

EFA Press Release, 04/26/2007

2007-04-28T15:07:00.000-07:00

Those who support treating homosexual relationships the same as marriage have been calling for scientific polling as a better gauge of how Alaskans feel on the issue, but they won’t like the results. In the latest Dittman poll Alaskans once again call for the state legislature to follow the results of the recent special advisory vote and put the proposed constitutional amendment on the November, 2008 ballot. 56% responded in favor of strengthening the marriage amendment in the constitution. Only 54% of those polled believe lack of ethics is a serious problem and those who support reinstating the longevity bonus only comprise 49% of respondents to the poll. The legislature continues to move ahead on ethics reform and restoration of the longevity bonus. The results of this poll are a mandate to the lawmakers of Alaska. Alaska voters consider protecting marriage to be of the highest priority.

These encouraging results come from a recent poll by Alaska’s premier pollster, Dave Dittman between April 9 and April 18. The poll was requested by the State Senate Majority Working Group. 410 Alaskans were surveyed in households randomly selected from current registered voter lists using the same methods Dittman Research has successfully used for 37 years in Alaska.

Eagle Forum Alaska calls on the legislature to trust Alaskans with the decision on this vitally important issue. The legislature has asked the people twice now if they want the opportunity to vote on a constitutional marriage amendment. How many more times must we say YES before the legislature acts on the will of the people? Eagle Forum Alaska President, Debbie Joslin states, “To maintain the trust of the voters, our legislature must respond to the advice the have asked for and pass HJR9.”

EFA Press Release, 04/19/2007

2007-04-28T15:04:00.000-07:00

In response to yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions, Eagle Forum Alaska has issued the following statement:

“For those who love liberty and justice, this decision was a resounding victory and a glimmer of hope for our future. That a civilized nation would even have to seriously debate the issue of whether or not a baby should have her head punctured with a pair of scissors during the birthing process, is ludicrous. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban on this horrific procedure is a sign that sanity is returning to the Court. We look forward to seeing more common sense jurisprudence from this Court.”

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Comments

2007-03-26T10:14:00.000-07:00

We encourage you to check out www.voteyesformarriagealaska.org. We are still receiving emails from individuals wishing to post comments on this (EFA) website. It is our policy to NOT post anonymous comments or those with foul language or name calling. Intelligent discussion is encouraged. We have yet to get one comment from anyone who disagrees with us on the subject of homosexuals seeking marriage benefits whose remarks meet all of the above criteria. The hate speech we have received has been shocking and disappointing. We look forward to having some meaningful dialogue on this subject.

Debbie Joslin's Compass Piece

2007-03-02T07:37:00.000-08:00

"Alaskans voted in 1998 to protect in our state constitution the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. In October 2005, the Alaska Supreme Court essentially thumbed its nose at this vote of the people by ruling that homosexual relationships and marriage are "similarly situated." Alaskans have an opportunity to right this wrong by voting yes on the statewide advisory vote April 3. A yes vote on April 3 will tell your legislator that you want a constitutional marriage amendment to reverse court encroachment. . ."

Read more by clicking on title.

Vote Yes For Marriage Flyer

2007-03-02T07:27:00.000-08:00

Click on title above to see what you can do to support Marriage in Alaska.

Print out a copy for each of your friends.

Adultery: It Ought to be a Crime

2007-02-09T12:10:00.000-08:00

The Center For Moral Clarity
Rod Parsley
President and Founder
email: rodparsley@centerformoralclarity.net
phone: 614-382-1188
World Harvest Church
4595 Gender Rd.
Canal Winchester, OH 43110

Lawmakers and judges in Michigan are holding married couples accountable for their vows of fidelity. An appeals court has ruled that anyone involved in an extramarital affair can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

"Adultery is a violation of biblical instruction as well as an offense against the other partner in what should be a sacred relationship. Furthermore, the breach of faith is disastrous to children - as well as the broader society," said Pastor Rod Parsley. "Too many men and women are willing to surrender to passion and desires of the flesh without considering the repercussions of those fleeting moments of pleasure."

It's one thing to pass a law and something else entirely to enforce it. Although Michigan has adultery on the books as a felony, until recently, no one had been prosecuted under that law since 1971. The rest of the nation should take a look at the Michigan statute. Criminal laws are designed to force people to conform to certain acceptable standards of personal behavior. Most of society's code of conduct has its roots in the 10 Commandments.

It's interesting, though, that the commandment to be faithful in marriage is treated as insignificant by popular culture. Adulterous behavior is just as wrong - just as much a sin - as lying, cheating, stealing and murder. Yet in 21st century America, there seems to be few consequences for a "harmless" fling on the side.

Even in this particular Michigan case, prosecuting adultery wasn't the intended purpose of the statute. The wording of the law led to this interpretation. The statute actually specifies that two people who engage in sex during the commission of any other felony is guilty of a first-degree sexual offense - the case in question involved a man who provided Oxycontin pills to a cocktail waitress in exchange for her sexual favors. The maximum punishment for this charge is life imprisonment. Since adultery is a felony in Michigan, the act of having sex outside marriage could put illicit couples behind bars.

Perhaps court systems across the nation should treat adultery for what it truly is: lying, cheating and stealing.

Michigan Court of Appeals Gets it Right

2007-02-02T15:18:00.000-08:00

In a unanimous decision Friday upholding the 2004 marriage initiative, appellate judges Kurtis Wilder, Joel Hoekstra and Brian Zahra declared “The protection of the institution of marriage is a long-standing public policy and tradition in the law of Michigan”. Siding with Attorney General Mike Cox, the three-judge panel reversed a March 2005 ruling by an Ingham County judge that would have allowed “domestic partner benefits” in the state. The case is expected to be appealed to the supreme court by the 21 petitioners, gay employees of the city of Kalamazoo, universities and the state.

For now, the state, cities, and public universities in Michigan can not provide health insurance to the partners of gay employees.

This suit resembles one decided by the Alaskan supreme court in October of 2005. Filed by gay couples employed by the Municipality of Anchorage and the State of Alaska, the suit sought to give same-sex partners the benefits of marriage, without requiring the responsibilities of marriage. The two courts could not have ruled more differently. Where Michigan ruled marriage-like benefits illegal, the Alaskan court decided they were not just allowed, but mandated by the constitution.

The different rulings can be traced directly to the wording of the respective marriage amendments. In 1998, Alaskans voted to add the words “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman”. Short and to the point. In 2004, Michiganders added a more verbose “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” The final 6 words make all the difference.

While it can be argued that voters in Alaska and Michigan had the same goal in mind when passing their respective marriage amendments, clearly the voters of Michigan did a much better job in choosing their words wisely.

The judges did not declare their own feelings as to whether same-sex partners should receive benefits, but stuck to the letter of the law. "It is a cornerstone of a democratic form of government to assume that a free people act rationally in the exercise of power, are presumed to know what they want, and to have understood the proposition submitted to them in all of its implications, and by their approval vote to have determined that the proposal is for the public good and expresses the free opinion of a sovereign people", wrote the court.

Click to See Michigan Amendment

Click to See Alaskan Amendment

Local Coverage

Hillary's "Mom Strategy" Gets Off To A Bumpy Start

2007-01-30T13:38:00.000-08:00

Jan. 31, 2007
by Phyllis Schlafly

Hillary Clinton has finally announced her run for the presidency. According to her erstwhile friend, political pundit Dick Morris, she will run on the "Mom Strategy" which, he says, "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war."

Hillary launched her Mom Strategy on the ABC television show "The View" when a co-host asked her if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position."

Wrong, Hillary, you're not the first mom to run for President. That niche in the history books goes to Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and even a grandmother, when she ran for President in 1976.

Running for the Democratic Party nomination for President, Ellen McCormack campaigned in 18 states (in chronological order): NH, MA, VT, FL, WI, PA, IN, GA, NE, MI, MD, TN, OR, KY, RI, SD, NJ, and CA. She didn't win any primaries, but she won some delegates and received 22 votes for President at the Democratic National Convention, more votes than were cast for Frank Church, Hubert Humphrey, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, or Fred Harris.

Mrs. McCormack was the first woman to receive Secret Service protection as a presidential candidate in a major party. She was also the first woman to receive federal matching funds for her primary campaign.

In 1980, Mrs. McCormack ran for President again, that time as the candidate of New York's Right To Life Party. She received 32,327 votes in New York, New Jersey and Kentucky, three of the states where she succeeded in getting on the ballot.

Ellen McCormack played a major role in the rise of the pro-life movement. Her leadership enabled the then-young pro-life movement to flex its muscles and demonstrate political courage, determination and perseverance.

After her campaigns for President, politicians who had been timid about saying they opposed abortion and Roe v. Wade came out of the woodwork and confidently stated their views. Mrs. McCormack was also important in the growth of the conservative movement in New York State.

It is curious that, like Hillary Clinton, the Associated Press also ignored Ellen McCormack's ground-breaking campaign for President. An AP news story, timed to coincide with Hillary's proclamation of her Mom Strategy, omitted Mrs. McCormack from a list of eight "women who have run for president," a list that included several whose insignificant campaigns terminated almost before they got started such as Pat Schroeder's.

The AP cited as its source for this list the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers. The Center's list, which is posted on its website and claims to be complete, names 15 women who sought major party nominations but also omits Ellen McCormack.

If I were conspiratorially minded, I might think that the pro-abortion feminists in the media and in universities are trying to drop Ellen McCormack, one of the original, valiant pro-life leaders, down the Memory Hole. Today, she has eight grandchildren and one great-grandchild, and she deserves her place in history.

Hillary Clinton's announcement of her Mom Strategy was part of her book tour to publicize a re-issue of her ten-year-old book called "It Takes a Village." The revised cover shows her surrounded by a collection of adoring children (like the photo-op of Nancy Pelosi when she took over as Speaker of the House).

The word village is a euphemism for government, and the concept of the village raising a child is the socialists' dream. It's based on the idea that children should be raised, guided and educated by an assortment of so-called experts, including teachers, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, judges, and daycare employees.

Hillary invites us to "imagine a country in which nearly all children between the ages of three and five attend preschool in sparkling classrooms." That children's paradise is France, which "makes caring for children a top priority," and where "more than 90 percent of French children between ages three and five attend free or inexpensive preschools."

The assumption of "It Takes a Village" is that daycare, run by tax-salaried and licensed "professionals" in centers regulated by the government, is preferable to mother care. Hillary praises the fact that many French children are in full-day programs "even before they reach the age of three."

The reissue of Hillary's old book dispels the notion that she is re-inventing herself as a moderate. Her Moms Strategy is badly out of sync with her book praising a country that starts government daycare for children at age 2.

At the RNC, Resistance is Futile

2007-01-24T11:04:00.000-08:00

For Star Trek Fans Only

By Denise McNamara, Republican National Committee

I have always been a big fan of Star Trek. When I was in the sixth grade, it was my favorite television show. (Yes, I am a nerd.) But you don't normally hear references to Star Trek on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. So when Congressman David Wu of Oregon , a Democrat, recently compared Republicans in the White House to Vulcans and Klingons, he got a lot of attention. Brit Hume played the clip on Fox News. If you missed it, you can watch the video clip of Wu, who bears a striking resemblance to Lt. Sulu, at the following link: www.clipstr.com/videos/ThereAreKlingonsInTheWhiteHouseRepDavidWu. While I don't agree with the Congressman's assessment, I have to admit it was hilarious.
Having just returned from the RNC meeting, another Star Trek analogy comes to mind. You see, members of the Republican National Committee are expected to assimilate. Any independence of thought or opposition to leadership is seen as unacceptable. The RNC has become the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
The top-down leadership of the RNC attempts to squelch individuality. Most members do not publicly express their true thoughts because, just as with the Borg, resistance will be punished. Few are willing to vote against the majority because that could mean the loss of a committee position or the prospect of future retaliation.
In politics, examples of classic Star Trek characters abound. We have Ferengi, those who profit from their positions. We have Changlings, or shape-shifters, who change their position to fit the situation. But I don't believe that we have Klingons in the White House. On the contrary, I think that President Bush is more like Captain Kirk. Vice President Dick Cheney is logical and unemotional like Spock. And perhaps Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is an effective diplomat because she possesses qualities similar to those of Ambassador Deanna Troi, a Betazoid. The United States , just like the Federation, is a force for good. Little did I know as a child watching Star Trek that it paralleled the politics of the era. For the rest of my tenure on the RNC, I will continue to resist, futile or not, because damn it, Jim, I'm a conservative. I will boldly go where no conservative on the RNC dares to go. And as Spock would say, live long and prosper.

RNC Meeting Report

2007-01-22T13:39:00.000-08:00

By Denise McNamara

Election of Senator Martinez as General Chairman

On Friday, during the General Session of the Winter Meeting of the RNC, Senator Martinez was elected as the new “General Chairman” with only a handful of the members voting “No.” All three members from Texas voted no.
The first debate concerned the creation of a new office of General Chairman. The Committeeman from North Dakota employed an independent parliamentarian who rendered an opinion which stated that a dual leadership structure was not authorized.
While I appreciated the Committeeman’s efforts, our rules do state that the RNC may elect “such other officers as the RNC shall deem necessary.” The context of that wording seems to suggest the creation of a minor office, such as historian, corresponding secretary, or a lesser office, but nothing prohibits the creation of a general chairman. Consequently, that effort was unsuccessful. Only two or three people on the RNC voted to prohibit the creation of the new position.
Although the committeeman from North Dakota had discussed making a motion for a secret ballot, no one made such a motion. The election was a voice vote. It is hard to identify who actually dissented. All three of us from Texas, the committeeman from Arizona, the committeewoman from Utah, and the committeeman from North Dakota may have been the only ones who cast a vote against Martinez. There could have been a few more. Most members, although unhappy with the choice of Senator Martinez, decided to support Senator Martinez publicly. Privately, many expressed dismay with the choice. I was very surprised that several RNC members told me that they were getting phone calls and emails and postcards asking them to vote “No,” yet they were still going to support the Senator.
The most common reason cited for supporting ill-advised decisions of the RNC leadership is that we must support the President. I, for one, would never insult the President. He has a tremendous challenge with the war in Iraq. I support him in the war. My purpose in speaking out at the RNC is to communicate to the leadership the unprecedented level of discontent that I am hearing from the voters in Texas. Morale is definitely low among our conservative base. The election of Senator Martinez does not help.
There is also an undercurrent at the RNC meetings that creates an enormous pressure on members to follow the instructions of the leadership. It is unfortunate that this atmosphere exists, but I do feel that everyone knew and understood our objections, and those of us who feel that this is a mistake were successful in making our voices heard.
Committeeman from Kentucky Mike Duncan was elected as the new day-to-day Chairman. Ohio Committeewoman Jo Ann Davidson was reelected as Co-Chairman. Committeeman from California Tim Morgan was elected as treasurer. Secretary Sara Gear Boyd, Committeewoman from Vermont, was re-elected.

Theme of the Meeting

The RNC Winter Meeting was named “Recommitting to Reform.” During the Resolutions Committee meeting on Thursday, we unanimously passed a resolution entitled, “Resolution Recognizing the Need to Recommit to Traditional Conservative Principles.” The resolution states, in part, “Whereas, Ronald Reagan reinvented the Republican Party in the 1980’s as the party that would change government, not sustain it, and Whereas the Republican class of 1994 swept to power in Congress for the first time in 40 years with a detailed list of reforms that took power away from the government and returned it to the people,” that “we should stay true to the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, individual freedom, and a strong national defense.”
Mike Duncan, Committeeman from Kentucky since 1992, was elected as the new day-to-day Chairman of the RNC. He stated that, “We need to get back to our plans, programs, policies, and practices.” He stated that we are all disappointed by the November elections, but that his job is not to make policy or even headlines, but to win elections. He stated that Senator Martinez would be the voice of the party and its ideals. Duncan reiterated that when we are true to our principles of lower taxes individual responsibility and limited government, we win.
Outgoing Chairman Ken Mehlman stated that, “If we are hesitant or apologetic about our principles, then it won’t matter how good our ground game is, and we must be committed to conservative principles.” Mehlman’s legacy at the RNC is the 72 Hour plan, the RNC Get-Out-the-Vote program, and his use of demographics and voter profiling to identify Republican voters, which led to the successful 2004 reelection of President Bush.

Remarks by President Bush

When President Bush addresses the RNC, he is of course in front of a friendly audience. It is always amazing how comfortable and effective he is in such a setting. On Thursday afternoon we were invited to a White House reception. The President focused his remarks mainly on the war in Iraq. He was passionate in stating that we are doing the right thing by persevering in Iraq. The President communicates with Prime Minister Maliki via videoconferencing. He understands that Americans want results. He has made changes in military leadership. President Bush stressed that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that terrorists will have the opportunity to use the oil revenues to purchase WMDs, and the situation will get much worse. He said “woe be it” to any Democrats who try to block funding for the military. He also said that he does not want his children or grandchildren to ask why he pulled out of Iraq and have to answer that it was because of a poll. It is obvious that the threat to our country is great, and President Bush’s prosecution of the war on terror is his greatest priority.

Summary

Reflecting on the entirety of the meeting, it is apparent that the RNC leadership understands that a recommitment to conservative principles is essential to victory. However, in their opinion, immigration reform and border control does not fall under the traditional conservative principles that they are focusing on. Fiscal responsibility has been lacking, and a return to that bedrock principle is important. I believe that the GOP will face a huge challenge in 2008, and we definitely have our work cut out for us. I thank all of you who contacted me and expressed your opinion. Please do not be discouraged. Your concerns have been passed on, and you were heard. That is the most important thing that all of us can do, is to continue to make our voices heard.

One More Thing – Presidential Contenders

I was invited to only two events for Republican presidential hopefuls. Senator John McCain had a reception on Thursday night. I attended for a short time, but the Senator was not present. He had a table with his books available. It was crowded, but it was not a large venue. I understand that Senator McCain was also meeting with individual RNC members at his Senate office throughout the day Thursday. One of his primary supporters on the RNC is the Committeeman from Michigan.
Governor Mitt Romney also had a reception on Thursday evening. I attended and actually met and spoke with Romney. I asked him how he was elected in a liberal state like Massachusetts. He responded that the state was faced with a tax increase, and he ran on the promise of not raising taxes and solving the fiscal crisis. He had a larger crowd than McCain. He addressed the entire group and was introduced by the Committeewoman from South Carolina, who is a conservative. In her introduction she said that God raises up leaders for times such as this, and she believes that Governor Romney is just such a leader. Romney has the endorsement of at least 16 RNC members. The Committeemen from New Jersey and Massachusetts were also with Governor Romney during his introduction.
There was little or no activity from any of the other Republican presidential candidates.

The Race To The Middle For 2008

2006-12-30T13:12:00.000-08:00

by Phyllis Schlafly

The best postmortem on the 2006 election came from that perennial politician, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). He said, "People want to know who's on their side. Whether it's health care or wages or retirement issues, they want to have someone on their side."

The biggest electoral bloc of the "they" who are seeking friends is the middle class, which includes people variously labeled blue-collar workers, skilled workers, or Reagan Democrats. They are the swing voters, often called the moveables. President Ronald Reagan's victories absolutely depended on their support. But Presidents Bush I and II kicked them away from the Republican Party, particularly on the issue of jobs.

Did the 2006 election teach Republicans that it is smart to be friends of the middle class? Have Republicans realized that jobs were second only to the unpopular war as the issue of 2006, and will surely be the number-one issue in 2008? George W. Bush carried Ohio in 2004 because the marriage amendment brought out the values voters. But Democrats can play that game, too: in 2006 the Ohio referendum on increasing the minimum wage raised the jobs issue, passed by 57 percent, and helped to bury Republican candidates.

Ohio has lost its manufacturing base. Some of the good jobs went to plants that were outsourced overseas and some disappeared in the tsunami of cheap Chinese goods as Wal-Mart replaced small businesses and left behind towns with empty streets and boarded-up windows.

Incumbent Republican Senator Mike DeWine was badly defeated by Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) who had led the congressional fight against CAFTA and wrote a book called "Myths of Free Trade." Brown's TV ads showing him standing in front of a "plant closed" sign were powerful.

Almost every one of the Republican Members of Congress who bit the dust in the 2006 election had been an enthusiastic booster of the globalists' agenda: NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO (World Trade Organization), Fast Track, PNTR (Permanent Normal Trading Relations), and Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with countries most Americans never heard of. Republicans were badly on the defensive in the face of Democrat ads touting the issue of jobs.

The United States has lost over three million manufacturing jobs since Bush became President. The U.S. trade deficit hit a record high of $717 billion last year, and is expected to be even higher this year.

The middle class is not placated by feel-good talk that the stock market has climbed to a record high, or that unemployment is at a record low, or that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is growing. Unemployment statistics don't count the guys who lost $50,000 jobs in manufacturing and are now working $25,000 jobs in retail, and job-growth figures happily do count the wives who have been involuntarily forced into the labor force just to keep groceries on the table.

The middle class is not placated by glib slogans that free trade is good for the economy and that protectionism is a nasty word. Common sense tells them that there is no such thing as a free lunch and yes, indeed, they do expect friends in government and industry to protect American jobs against unfair competition from foreigners who work for 30 cents an hour. Americans relish competition, as our national fixation on sports contests proves every day. But the globalists have destroyed a level playing field and, in addition, have subordinated us to an umpire (a.k.a. the WTO) that is biased against us.

Globalist policies have encouraged U.S. employers to use near-slave labor in Asia, whose products are then guaranteed duty-free or low-tariff re-entry to the United States. Those products are then sold here for prices that are cheap by U.S. standards but have a high markup of up to 80 percent.

Globalist policies also allow discrimination against U.S. manufacturers by the Value Added Tax racket, whereby foreign governments subsidize their products both coming and going. For example, German automobiles cost 16 percent less in the United States than the same car sold in Germany, and U.S. automobiles cost 16 percent more in Germany than the same car bought in the United States.

Nancy Pelosi plans to shift the dialogue on Capitol Hill to worker's pay, college tuition, health-care costs, and other issues that touch ordinary families. Her solutions are all bad economics and very expensive, but they will enable her to pose as a friend of the middle class.

All six U.S. Senators thought to be planning a run for the Democratic nomination for president voted against CAFTA. The issue would be dramatically joined if the Democratic nominee were opposed, for example, by Senator John McCain, who supported NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and PNTR for China.

Will Republicans continue to follow George W. Bush in his post-election travels to solicit even more Asian products made by cheap labor and subsidized by their governments? Or will Republicans get smart on the jobs issue and reestablish their friendship with the Reagan Democrats?

This article originaly posted Nov. 29, 2006 here.

Same-sex partnerships are not equal to legal marriage

2006-12-30T13:05:00.000-08:00

By DOUGLAS GRIMM

I am continually amazed to read about the Alaska Supreme Court's decision ordering health benefits to be paid to same-sex partners. I salute anyone who is against this decision and encourage continued opposition.

We are a state and nation of laws. Same-sex relationships are not the same as a legal marriage between one man and one woman. Because these relationships are not legally binding, how can the state be ordered to accept them for benefit purposes?

If same-sex partners are allowed a legally recognized marriage, benefits should be provided. It is unlikely that this will happen. We have addressed this issue before, and the majority has spoken. Their decision should be respected by the minority who choose this "alternate" gay lifestyle.

For state employees in the system, think about what this type of action does to an already overtaxed system. Health-benefit costs continue to rise for singles and those of us who are legally married. This type of decision by a confused Alaska Supreme Court only opens the floodgates. What is next? Male-female shack-ups? Multiple partner shack-ups? Why should they also not be considered equal to married people and receive benefits?

It is a fact that most same-sex relationships rarely last. With no legal documentation as to when these same-sex relationships start and end, how in the heck are the benefit administrators supposed to do their jobs? As a state employee, I was required to present a marriage certificate before my spouse could receive benefit coverage. With same-sex relationships, what proof will the benefit providers require? A note from their "lover" saying they really are in a relationship?

Likewise, if these same-sex relationships end, it's very likely the partner will continue to receive benefits because there is no legal proof of dissolution of the relationship. How about the case where same-sex partners decide to switch partners? Again, no legal proof is available that any kind of relationship even existed. There is a lot room for abuse of the system with such an open-ended policy.

The vast majority of people are opposed to same-sex shack-ups and the very nature of this behavior is so disgusting to many of us that most people would rather not even think about it, much less speak out. Women who engage in sex with other women, and men who have sex with other men, and call it a loving relationship are simply deluding themselves into thinking it is OK. It is just flat out wrong, but as a free country we tolerate many types of distasteful behaviors. Tolerance is OK, but don't expect us to accept it.

Most people will agree with what I am saying, but few will speak out. The gays will obviously rebut this letter and scream "gay-bashing." I wish anyone who is gay no harm whatsoever. You do have the right to do what you do. Others have the right to say it is wrong. Should this letter come to print, it will likely cause a lot responses from the relatively few gays out there. Unfortunately, when you expose their behavior for what it truthfully is, they will get angry. It is predictable.

I strongly encourage all nongay citizens, legislators and judges to consider the truth of the matter. We all have a pretty good sense of what it is right and what is wrong; listen to your common sense. Any law or court decision can be changed. Have the courage to speak out on this. There is more at stake here than just health benefits. This decision is an attack on our social morals.

Finally, to you gays out there - seriously, listen to your own conscience and quietly reflect upon your behavior. Deep down inside, just admit it, you know it is wrong and you can change your behavior. If you can't be honest with yourself and admit your error, at least stop trying to cram your way of life down our throats; keep your sex life private, like any respectable person would, be they gay or not.

Douglas Grimm is a Juneau resident.
This letter reprinted with permission of the author.
It was published in the Juneau Empire on Dec. 28, 2006

Palin wrong on gay benefits

2006-12-30T13:03:00.000-08:00

By Rep. Mike Kelly

I was deeply disappointed when Gov. Sarah Palin ordered marriage benefits to be provided for homosexuals who pair up with public employees, teachers, legislators, judges, commissioners, administrators and local officials.

In 1998 the Legislature and Alaskans acted wisely and clearly to prevent same-sex marriage. During that public process they also showed little interest in providing marriage-equivalent benefits for homosexual pairs at public expense.

To the delight of the American Civil Liberties Union and other promoters of the activist homosexual agenda and socialized medicine, the five-member Alaska Supreme Court is ignoring the will of the majority of Alaskans and their elected legislators, to whom we delegate the powers of law-making and appropriation of public funds. The Supremes are clever and experienced at twisting our constitution to advance their agenda against Alaska's families. Perhaps we should elect, not appoint them.

When Representative Coghill and I discussed the same-sex benefits issue with Gov. Palin by phone in November, she voiced serious concern about providing these benefits at public expense. After this conversation, I was floored when she caved in without a fight and announced plans to implement marriage-equivalent benefits for homosexual partners effective Jan. 1, 2007.

Make no mistake, provision of benefits to homosexual pairs will be just the beginning. Bets are on that the next lawsuits will come from shacked-up heterosexuals and common-law marriage folks who will claim the Supremes have treated them shabbily when compared to homosexual pairs.

Gov. Palin's decision to support the Legislature's action to provide for an April '07 vote of the public was commendable, but falls way short. Now is not the time to "go along to get along."

Her decision to create and fund a benefits-rich new public employee tier should rattle all Alaskans who are concerned about: 1) maintaining the separate executive, legislative and judicial powers of government; 2) the court taking another "detour into Oz" by equating unnatural homosexual pairings to the time-honored status of legitimate marriage between a man and a woman, entrusted by God and society with forming families as the essential building blocks of our communities, and with birthing, loving, feeding, clothing, housing, nurturing, educating, protecting and counseling our young; and 3) addressing the $10 billion public retirement system unfunded liability.

Governor, here is what I and many Alaskans had hoped the Palin/Parnell team would say in this regard:

"People of Alaska, the record is clear that in 1998 you stood strong against homosexual marriage and indicated no desire to provide marriage benefits to homosexual pairings at public expense. Nonetheless, our Supreme Court seems bent on forcing our legislative and executive branches to implement and fund these benefits with your money. I believe their decision is based on a tortured reading of our constitution, with complete disdain for families and the constitutional separation of government powers.

"Gov. Murkowski tried to stop the court, but erred by providing a set of proposed regulations implementing the benefits and then suspending the regulations pending action by the Legislature and new governor.

"The Legislature, which received the court's decision after close of the last regular session, tried in special session to prevent implementation by providing for a vote of Alaskans next April. They also ordered the commissioner of administration not to implement same-sex benefits that have not been approved or funded by the Legislature.

"Most Alaskans and their elected representatives don't want the state providing homosexual marriage benefits. The courts took seven years to make their decision. I've only had a few days. Therefore, pending investigation my administration will not, in defiance of the people of Alaska and the Legislature, provide these benefits or write a check to pay for them until the people have an opportunity to weigh in and unless the Legislature approves and funds these benefits. If this action causes a constitutional crisis, so be it. Threats of incarceration will not deter me or the lieutenant governor or my commissioner. Should my position change, you will be among the first to know."

We need action that flows from the same moral outrage and constitutional indignation that Alaskans displayed when they voted for the constitutional amendment in 1998. It's not too late, governor. Pull up! Pull up!

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, was elected to the District 7 House seat in 2004.

Read this article online.

Babies killed for stem cells?

2006-12-30T12:59:00.000-08:00

Healthy new-born babies may have been killed in Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells, evidence obtained by the BBC suggests.
Disturbing video footage of post-mortem examinations on dismembered tiny bodies raises serious questions about what happened to them.
Read full article here

Let Time Know You Support Dr. Dobson

2006-12-30T12:58:00.000-08:00

Let Time Know You Support Dr. Dobson

Gay-activist groups have mobilized to oppose an editorial in Time magazine written by Dr. James Dobson. Write the publication’s editors and let them know that you appreciate them publishing “Two Mommies Is One Too Many,” Dr. Dobson’s piece on why children “do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.”

You can read Dr. Dobson's Time editorial by clicking here

Homosexual-advocacy groups posted Internet and email alerts this week expressing “outrage” that Time published Dr. Dobson’s essay. Supporters of same-sex marriage, parenting and adoption are trying to challenge long-standing social science data that children do best with a married mother and father, claiming that newer research discredits these findings — a claim that many respected experts in this field reject. As part of this effort, gay activist organizations are asking their supporters to write Time and complain that Dr. Dobson’s essay is inaccurate.

In reality, Time editors fact-checked Dr. Dobson’s commentary before it was published and found it to be accurate.

So, what can you do to support Dr. Dobson and traditional families?

Write a brief, polite note (200 words or less) to the editors at Time and thank them for publishing the truth about parenting from Dr. Dobson. Thank them for allowing Dr. Dobson to share with the nation what gay activists don’t want anyone to know: Children do best when raised by their married mother and father.

E-mail your letter to the editor to letters@time.com

Last Chance for Pro-Life Legislation

2006-12-30T12:54:00.000-08:00

Last Chance for Pro-Life Legislation
Urge your Representative to vote YES on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act!
Your help is needed in pushing through an important piece of pro-life legislation expected to be considered in the House next week during the final days of the Congressional session! Sponsored by Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, H.R. 6099, would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that their unborn child feels pain and that they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate that pain.
Currently co-sponsored by 93 Members, this bill was previously introduced in both the 108th and 109th Congress in light of compelling testimony offered during the Partial Birth Abortion trials. Witnesses testified that unborn children past 20 weeks from fertilization feel excruciating pain during the course of an abortion. Passage of this bill is crucial because women have the right to know the facts about the medical development of their unborn children and that the option to minimize the child's pain exists!
Congress has an interest in decreasing the pain of aborted human babies, as it even requires, by law, for pain to be minimized when livestock are slaughtered! A majority of the American people favor such common sense legislation, as a 2004 Zogby poll found that 77% of the public favors "laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain."
Since this bill is likely to be considered under the "Suspension Calendar," a two-thirds majority is required for passage. Consideration of this bill is an opportunity to draw attention to the pain felt by those most vulnerable — the unborn! We need your help! Please call your Congressman today!

Take Action
Call your Representative and urge them to vote YES on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act!

Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

EFA Legislative Alert, Nov 13, 2006

2006-11-14T12:45:00.000-08:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Governor Murkowski ordered the legislature to gavel in to a special session in Juneau today to pass legislation that meets the approval of the Alaska Supreme Court and grants benefits to same sex partners of state employees and retirees. I had asked you to call your legislator and if you tried to do so today you may have had a hard time contacting anyone. It seems that God had other plans – snow and weather caused flight delays and cancellations to flights into Juneau today. Many of our legislators are sleeping in Sitka tonight and planning on making the last leg of the journey (Tuesday) tomorrow morning, weather permitting. Please try again tomorrow to contact your legislator if you did not do that today. Our legislators need to be encouraged to stand up to the courts and refuse to participate in ignoring the will of the people. The people of Alaska made it quite clear that marriage is for one man and one woman and giving benefits to same-sex partners undermines the intent of the constitutional amendment.

The contact information is below.

I have just been handed a copy of a letter from the Dept. of Administration to an Alaska state retiree along with a special enrollment packet for same sex partners. These letters and packets were mailed to state employees and retirees who do not have a spouse registered under the health insurance plan. The packet contains regulations that “have been submitted to the Lt. Governor’s Office for filing.” The enrollee may enroll their “same-sex partner” if they “have been in an exclusive, committed, and intimate relationship with each other for the last consecutive 12 months and intend to continue that relationship indefinitely.”

The state has added a link to their official state website for issues related to same sex benefits. There is a lot of information there and you really should check it out. Don’t expect it to be infallible though. The website says that adding same sex partners as dependents will only marginally affect costs to the state.

It is time for Alaskans to stand up and let our voices be heard on this issue. Our legislators need to know we care about this issue.

Working for the family,
Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

EFA Legislative Alert, Nov 12, 2006

2006-11-13T13:08:00.000-08:00

Legislators must defy court on same-sex benefits

2006-11-13T13:03:00.000-08:00

Last year the Alaska Supreme Court usurped the will of the people of Alaska in one of the most far reaching power grabs by a court in America. Contrary to the provision in our State constitution that defends marriage as a union of a man and a woman, the Court demands that the State and its political subdivisions provide employment benefits to co-habiting homosexuals.

On Friday, October 27 Governor Murkowski called for a Special Session of the Legislature on November 13 to address the State’s response to the Court.

Following a Supreme Court order on July 1, Department of Administration Commissioner Scott Nordstrand has been working on enacting regulations to implement the court’s decision. According to law, the procedure for enacting regulations had to be reviewed before filing by Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman. Leman recognized that the regulations did not align with state statutes and declined to file them, returning them to Governor Murkowski and advising him of the deficiencies in the regulations.

Governor Murkowski and his advisors apparently concluded that Leman’s determination has merit. The Governor called for the Legislature to come back to Juneau to provide the authority to write the regulations the Court demands. Our legislators are being asked to write statutes (laws) to align with the regulations required by the Court. In other words, legislators are being asked to rubber stamp the Court’s request for new laws. The legislature does need to take action but not the action prescribed by the Court.

Last year several legislators attempted to pass a resolution for a constitutional amendment to be placed on our November 7 ballot. This amendment would have clarified that Alaska’s defense of marriage constitutional provision (Article 1, Section 25) does not require the State to provide benefits to people in partnerships other than marriage. Doing so would have shown the Court clearly that the benefits, rights and responsibilities of marriage are reserved only for those who are married.

We only allow those with certain criteria to be issued a license to practice medicine and the same is true for attorneys. The institute of marriage is so much more important than any in society and the criteria for marriage is one man and one woman. Nothing new, nothing different, just the same criteria we have always held. Homosexual couples are free to live together but society is not obligated to call it marriage or treat it as such.

Alaska state legislators need to stand strong to defend what Alaska’s voters have said clearly in 1998, not bow their knees to the imperial Court. Alaska’s voters have demonstrated that we want to protect the basic building block of society – the family.

It is vitally important to the institution of marriage and the nuclear family, to the state, and to the constitution that the Court not be allowed to usurp the authority of the legislature. The legislature represents the will of the people of Alaska. Children are the big losers if we abandon our principles and beliefs.

The ACLU and PFLAG are crying foul and claiming discrimination. We heard during the legislative hearings last year that legislators were trying to “take away” their rights. Take away rights? That implies that those rights belonged to homosexual “couples” and we are attempting to take from them what rightfully is theirs. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is nothing more than political trickery and sleight of hand at best. This is like a purse snatcher who steals a woman’s purse and cries foul when the policeman takes it from him. He claims the purse was his and accuses the woman of discrimination because she wants her purse back. In this case the court has sided with the purse snatcher!

The Alaska courts are guilty of judicial tyranny. Legislators must stand up and defend the constitution now by saying “No” to the extension of employment benefits to homosexual partners of State employees and retirees!

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Former National Committeewoman for Alaska,
Republican National Committee

PO Box 377
Delta Junction, AK 99737
907 895 4565
joslin@wildak.netwww.eagleforumalaska.org

Leman Letter

2006-11-02T21:55:00.000-08:00

- By Lt. Governor Loren Leman

Last Friday Governor Murkowski announced he is calling a special session of the Legislature on November 13 to respond to the Alaska Supreme Court demands that the State provide health care and other benefits for homosexual "partners" of State employees and retirees. I declined to sign and file regulations proposed by the Department of Administration because they do not meet requirements of law. In my letter to Governor Murkowski I outlined their deficiencies and suggested alternative action. The Governor is correct to ask the Legislature for direction in responding to the Supreme Court, although it is unlikely the Legislature will want to meet its demands.

The best direction the Legislature can give is to allow voters the opportunity to reaffirm not only that marriage is reserved to a male-female union, but also that neither the State nor any of its political subdivisions may be required by Court order to provide benefits traditionally reserved for married couples to anyone not in a marriage relationship.

Nordstrand letter

2006-11-02T19:59:00.000-08:00

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PO,BOX 1 10200

JUNEAU, ALASKA 9981 1-0200

PHONE: (907)465-2200

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER (907)465-2135

October 27, 2006

Hon. Frank H. Murkowski, Governor
State of Alaska
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801

Dear Governor Murkowski:

Re: ACLU v. State of Alaska and Implementation of Same-Sex Partner Benefits for State
Emplovees and Retirees

On October 28, 2005 the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision in Alaska Civil
Liberties Union ("ACLU") v. State of Alaska ("State") and Municipality of Anchorage ("MOA"), 122
P.3d 781 (Alaska 2005), in which it concluded the failure to provide certain benefits to same-sex
partners of State and MOA employees and retirees violated the equal protection clause in the
Alaska Constitution. The Court retained jurisdiction over the case to consider the "issue of
remedy." The parties completed briefing that matter before the Court in January 2006. More
than four months later and after the legislature had adjourned its regular session, the Court
ordered that the State and MOA "must provide, no later than January 1,2007, benefits
complying" with its 2005 decision.

In order to implement the Supreme Court's decision, Alaska statutes and regulations
should be modified and supplemented to address the issue of same-sex partners. As the
legislature was not informed of the remedy ordered until after it adjourned and its next regular
session would not occur until after the Court-ordered deadline, the State proposed to establish
a system of same-sex partner benefits by regulation. The Superior Court, which was ordered to
monitor compliance on remand, accepted this method of implementation.

With the assistance of the Department of Law, the Department of Administration
undertook to draft the necessary regulations to comply with the Supreme Court's order. Draft
regulations were published on September 1,2006 and available for public comment throughout
September. Having modified the regulations based upon those comments and further
departmental review, I adopted final regulations on October 13,2006. The regulations were
forwarded to the Department of Law for review and ultimately arrived in the office of the
Lieutenant Governor for filing. Two circumstances have arisen that warrant taking additional
steps to ensure orderly compliance with the Supreme Court's mandate.

First,, the Superior Court has repeatedly intervened in the process of developing the
regulations. It has gone so far as to require me to provide advance notice of regulations that are
not yet final, arguably infringing on the powers of the Executive Branch and your prerogatives.
The Superior Court has already suggested in a lengthy written order and oral comments on the
record that the criteria we have adopted are likely constitutionally ism. On the heels of these
forewarnings-all given before the regulations are even effective-the ACLU moved for an order
requiring me essentially to adopt the regulations proposed by the MOA. Those regulations
provide little or no safeguards against fraud on the State health and retirement systems. They
do not ensure that only those persons that the Supreme Court intended to receive the benefits
at issue do so. In essence, a mere roommate relationship could suffice for entitlement to State
health and retirement benefits.

Furthermore, since retirement rights (both health and survivorship) once given cannot be
constitutionally rescinded, imposition of the MOA's criteria arguably create an irrevocable
liability to the State of unknown financial consequences. I am deeply concerned that the State
is but one court order away from a new and expensive retirement tier for thousands of State
employees and PERS /TRS retirees.

The second circumstance suggesting supplemental action to implement the Supreme
Court order is the October 23, 2006 letter to you from the Lieutenant Governor in which he
challenges my authority to adopt the proposed regulations. First he argues that I have no
authority to issue any regulation regarding the active health care plan. Next he claims that
regulations cannot be adopted that have the effect of contravening the specific language of a
statute [i.e. who can be provided health and retirement benefits under the State plans). Finally,
he asserts that a policy matter of this significance should be addressed by the legislature, not
imposed by departmental regulation. Consequently he has refused to file the regulations.
While the Department of Law has concluded that I do have the authority to adopt the
regulations, the Lieutenant Governor raises serious "separation of powers" concerns that
deserve careful consideration. Caution and good public policy demand that I recommend the
legislature be given the opportunity to address this matter.

Therefore, I believe that it is in the State's best interest for you to issue a proclamation
calling the Alaska Legislature into special session as soon as possible to consider how to
implement the Supreme Court's order of June 1,2006. A policy matter of this import is best
addressed by the legislature and governor. In the interim we will continue down the regulatory
path, but to be absolutely certain that these benefits can lawfully be provided I recommend that
a special session be called for November 13,2006.

Sincerely,
Scott J. Nordstrand
Commissioner

Judicial Retention Information

2006-10-31T10:01:00.000-08:00

- By Glen Biegel

Why judicial retention matters.

First, what is it? Judicial retention is a periodic opportunity for the public to judge our judges. They are voted on, or ‘retained’, in our regular elections in what has traditionally been an elective ‘non-event.’

Judicial retention matters because the misinterpretation of even a single word in our Constitution leads to overturning supermajorities of legislators and Governors. Our judicial branch was designed to be the least powerful, not the most important. That is no longer the case. Liberalism in all of its forms is not often implemented by our elected legislators. It comes almost exclusively through the courts.

In extreme cases, our judge’s rulings can abuse the will of the people by ignoring even a Constitutional Amendment such as the Marriage act that was passed in 1998. The Marriage Act was disregarded in a recent 5 to 0 decision that recognized ‘same-sex domestic partnerships’ as having the same characteristics as married people, and therefore were eligible for benefits. Read their reasoning:

The Supreme Court Ruling: ACLU vs State of Alaska and Municipality of Anchorage (S-10459)

“This case requires us to determine if it is reasonable to pay public employees who are in committed domestic relationships with same-sex partners less in terms of employee benefits than their coworkers who are married.”

Many same-sex couples are no doubt just as “truly closely related” and “closely connected” as any married couple, in the sense of providing the same level of love, commitment, and mutual economic and emotional support, as between married couples, and would choose to get married if they were not prohibited by law from doing so.

There are no references to ‘committed domestic relationships’ or ‘same-sex couples’ in current Alaska law. They are constructs exclusively of the Alaska State Supreme court. This kind of judicial abuse directly contradicts the marriage amendment:

Section 1.25 - Marriage.

To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one
man and one woman.

The courts may not grant the benefits of marriage by equating another relationship to marriage. That is specifically rejected in the amendment. Whether you call another relationship a ‘same-sex couple’ or a ‘committed domestic relationship with same-sex partners,’ our Constitution does not allow the courts to equate them to marriage.

The following is the list of judges who are up for retention. While none of the Supreme Court justices are up, that does not mean that the great disparity between public opinion and judicial action cannot be addressed.

Relevant Opinions:

Superior Court - First Judicial District

Judge Larry Weeks
Juneau
09/03/90
Leniency
Court of Appeals Nos. A-8663/8664
Trial Court Nos. 1JU-02-1077 CR
1JU-02-1509 CR

O P I N I O N: [No. 1987 - June 17, 2005]

In this case, the sentencing judge did not specify during his remarks at sentencing whether the defendants sentences were concurrent or consecutive. We hold that, under former AS 12.55.025(e), when a sentencing judge does not specify whether a defendants sentences are concurrent or consecutive, the sentences must be deemed concurrent.

Judge Larry C. Zervos
Sitka
09/14/90
Sexual Assault of Children – Lenient
ALASKA MAN SENTENCED TO JAIL FOR MOLESTING TWO GIRLS
A deaf man in Juneau, Alaska was sentenced to eight years in prison after admitting to molesting two girls when they were children. Arley Dominguez, 48, “hugged his wife, smiled and waved his shackled hands at other family members” as he was led out of court last Friday, reported the Juneau Empire. Assistant Public Defender Eric Hedland said his client accepted guilt in the case ever since he was charged in November with eight felonies. “He was willing to take his lumps,” said Hedland. Sitka Superior Court Judge Larry Zervos placed Dominguez on probation for 10 years after his release and ordered him to register as a sex-offender and participate in sex-offender treatment arranged by the Department of Corrections.

Superior Court - Second Judicial District

Judge Richard H. Erlich
Kotzebue
03/08/91

Judge Ben Esch
Nome
02/16/96
Bad Judgement – Sexual abuse of a minor
Judge reinstates civil suit against diocese
FAIRBANKS - A judge in Nome reversed himself and now will allow a civil case involving allegations of abuse by a priest to go forward. Superior Court Judge Ben Esch in February dismissed the suit against the Fairbanks Catholic Diocese and the Society of Jesus brought by a woman identified in court documents as Jane Doe 2.

Superior Court - Third Judicial District

Judge Joel Bolger
Kodiak
09/02/03

Judge Harold M. Brown
Kenai 04/08/96
Bad Judgment
Court of Appeals No. A-8809
Appellant, ) Trial Court No. 3KN-03-478 CR
) [No. 5114 — September 13, 2006]

Superior Court Judge Harold M. Brown granted a motion to suppress McCurdy’s statements, including evidence of McCurdy’s conduct pointing out the location of the single packet of heroin. However, citing Smith v. State,5 Judge Brown concluded that the heroin would have been “inevitably discovered based solely on information known to the police[,] and [the heroin was] not subject to suppression.”

Judge Charles T. Huguelet
Kenai
09/02/03

Judge Peter A. Michalski
Anchorage
01/31/85
Marriage
Judge Michalski is probably bestknown for his 1996 court decision finding that homosexual partners areentitled to be "married". Alaskan voters apparently disagreed as we votedoverwhelmingly to uphold traditional one man- one woman marriage. Judge Sen Tan ruled in 2000 that the state must pay for convenienceabortions for poor women. His rationale was that if the state was going topay for prenatal (well-baby) care for these women, they must also fund abortions.

Judge William F. Morse
Anchorage
02/27/02
Judicial Elitism
On July 28 Superior Court Judge William Morse determined that Superior Court Judge Michael Jeffery (Barrow) and District Court Judge Nancy Nolan (Anchorage) had timely filed their notices of intention to run for retention on the November 2004 ballot despite the undisputed fact that both judges submitted their declaration of candidacy forms to the Division of Elections over two weeks after the filing deadline, with the request that the Division accept them late. Under Alaska law the notice to file must be made by August 1st before the general election. In addition, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that the Division of Elections has no discretion to accept a late-filed declaration of candidacy, and that the Division must strictly construe the statute requiring this filing. However, in Jeffrey v. Glaiser and Nolan v. Glaiser the court said that the Division of Elections abused its discretion by refusing to put the names of judges on the ballot.

Even though the Division of Elections provides a declaration of candidacy form, Judge Morse determined that Judges Jeffrey and Nolan fulfilled the filing requirement when a Judicial Council employee sent an email containing the addresses of the judges eligible for retention, without their knowledge, to a temporary employee at the Division of Elections whose job was to coordinate the ballot pamphlet sent to Alaska voters. This Elections employee then mailed the judges information about how to submit ballot pamphlet materials, along with a reminder that they were required to file their declarations of candidacy by August 1. The Judicial Council employee also later sent a reminder to the candidates, stating that if they failed to file a declaration of candidacy with the Division of Elections by August 1, their names would not appear on the ballot.

“The Division of Elections is charged with running a fair election, and this requires clear rules that the public understands,” said Márquez. “The superior court decision recognizes that there are concrete deadlines for filing declarations of candidacy for any office, but establishes ambiguous standards for what constitutes a declaration by a judicial candidate. The burden that this decision places on the Division combined with the importance of the legal issue compels us to seek review by the Alaska Supreme Court.”

Judge Eric Smith
Palmer
04/18/96

Judge John Suddock
Anchorage
11/14/02
Fathers Rights
Supreme Court No. S-11269
Superior Court No. 3AN-92-2426CI
[No. 5918 - July 1, 2005]

On May 13, 2003, James Ray filed a pro se superior court motion seeking a change of custody, support, and visitation, a combined affidavit and memorandum, and a proposed order. His motion asked the court to stop all child support for C.R. retroactive to the date of the divorce and stated that C.R. was not his biological or adopted son. James alleged in his motion that he had not been given visitation rights as court- ordered and that he had been allowed to see C.R. only three times since the divorce. His supporting affidavit and memorandum alleged that C.R. was included in the divorce order because it had been determined that there was an existing father-son relationship. Jamess affidavit also stated that the father-son relationship was stopped when [C.R.s mother] left the state within a week of divorce and never allowed me visitation with [C.R.].

Judge Sen K. Tan
Anchorage
12/04/96
Abortion, public funding, parental consent
Planned Parenthood of Alaska et al. vs. State of Alaska. In 2003, Judge Sen Tan struck down a law that required young women under the age of 17 to obtain the consent of a parent or a judge before having an abortion. Tan ruled that the law violated teens' rights to equal protection under the state's constitution because it requires them to involve a parent only in their decision to have an abortion, not in other medical decisions such as carrying a pregnancy to term.

Judge Fred Torrisi
Dillingham
11/27/96
English Language

Judge Philip R. Volland
Anchorage
11/14/02
Judgement Ralph Inga convicted of sexual assault on incapacitated woman. Ralph Inga was tried for sexual assault in the second degree with an incapacitated person and was found guilty by a jury before Judge Michael L. Wolverton Anchorage 12/04/96 Leniency

Judge Volland did not admit the evidence that the defendant had previously engaged in sexual abuse of the same person and did not even admit evidence that the defendant was on probation and was not supposed to have any contact with the victim.

Judge Michael L. Wolverton
Anchorage
12/04/96
Leniency
Downtown shooting, known gang member charged with first-degree assault and misconduct involving weapons. Wolverton approved a known gang-related third-party custodian over the state's objections. Police later could not reach the defendant, and surprise, the custodian was absent. He was later spotted and ran until he was tackled by an officer. He was carrying a stolen .40-caliber Glock.

In another case, Mark Elkins cut off another car in fit of road rage, causing that other vehicle to rollover, killing the driver and fracturing the skull of her son. Wolverton's sentenced Elkins to 12 weeks in jail after pleading no contest to leaving the scene of the accident.

Superior Court - Fourth Judicial District

Judge Leonard R. Devaney, III
Bethel
02/27/02

Judge Randy M. Olsen
Fairbanks
04/28/03

Judge Mark I. Wood
Fairbanks
08/30/02

District Court - First Judicial District

Judge Kevin G. Miller
Ketchikan
08/30/99

District Court - Third Judicial District

Judge Brian K. Clark
Anchorage
06/11/03

Judge William L. Estelle
Palmer
06/11/03

Judge Gregory Louis Heath
Palmer
10/11/03

Judge David S. Landry
Kenai
11/01/04

Judge John R. Lohff
Anchorage
03/08/91

Judge Gregory Motyka
Anchorage
07/26/91

Judge Sigurd E. Murphy
Anchorage
07/08/92

Judge Stephanie Rhoades
Anchorage
07/30/92
Leniency, See Wolverton

Judge Jack W. Smith
Anchorage
06/11/03

Judge John W. Wolfe
Palmer
11/01/04

District Court - Fourth Judicial District

Judge Winston S. Burbank
Fairbanks
04/28/03

Judge Jane F. Kauvar
Fairbanks
02/18/81
Drug Leniency
DAVID S. NOY, )
) Court of Appeals No. A-
8327
Trial Court No. 4FA-01-3003 CR 1897 August 29, 2003

The question presented in this case is whether AS 11.71.060(a) is constitutional to the extent that it prohibits possession of marijuana by adults in their homes for personal use.

On one level, the answer is straightforward. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Ravin that the right of privacy codified in article I, section 22 of our state constitution protects the right of adults to possess marijuana in their homes for personal use. When a statute conflicts with a provision of our state constitution, the statute must give way. Thus, a statute which purports to attach criminal penalties to constitutionally protected conduct is void.

Retention of Judges

2006-10-31T07:55:00.000-08:00

From the Eagle Forum Alaska Newsletter, October, 2006
-By Debbie Joslin

Alaska voters will be asked to vote on whether to retain judges on November 7.

Two judges of particular interest on the ballot this year are Peter Michalski and Sen Tan.

Judge Michalski is interesting. His wife Jo was listed as a co-sponsor of a fundraiser for Tony Knowles in September. Judge Michalski is probably best known for his 1996 court decision finding that homosexual partners are entitled to be “married”. Alaskan voters apparently disagreed as we voted overwhelmingly to uphold traditional one man-one woman marriage.

Judge Sen Tan ruled in 2000 that the state must pay for convenience abortions for poor women. His rationale was that if the state was going to pay for prenatal care for these women, they must also fund abortions.

Alaska’s courts are some of the most liberal in the country. Our Alaska Supreme Court overturned parental consent for abortion and the partial birth abortion ban. They are now considering forcing the legislature to fund education at whatever level the court says is appropriate. That is a move that has been successful in other states and I don’t expect our courts to disappoint the liberals. After all, Alaska Courts are consistent if nothing else.

Vote Buying?

2006-10-27T21:29:00.000-07:00

By Mike Prax

An array of signs displayed in front of the public employee union's office on College Road in Fairbanks.

The most prominent sign reads: "YOUR VOTE = YOUR PAYCHECK". The campaign signs of the Democrat Party candidates: Tony Knowles, Joe Thomas, Tim Beck, and Scott Kawasaki are either directly attached or displayed nearby. The glaringly obvious inference from this display is that the unionss leaders are telling their members that these candidates have made an agreement to pay them for their vote.

They're a flagrant example of the systemic corruption that we have allowed to creep into our state's government and demonstrate the urgency of understanding the self serving motivation of that union and the aspiring elected officials allied with them.

I am not surprized that these candidates are making a monitary exchange for votes, I am amazed that the union is brazen enough to publicly proclaim the agreement they've made, and assume that the general public - to whom the statement doesn't apply - would condone or at least tolerate it.

That union appears to have become so corrupt that they don't see the irony of their own message and they don't expect the general public (or their members who hold to a higher standard) to stop them. It's as though they think that we'd allow them to hire someone to rob our bank as long as they don't wear a mask.

Please study these pictures, and if you adhere to a standard higher than "your vote equals your paycheck", act accordingly when you cast that vote this November 7th.

Please also forward this message to your friends who also need to contemplate the literal message of these signs.

Our future and our children's future depends on it.

For Liberty,

Mike

UNION OFFICIALS ATTACK REPUBLICANS

2006-10-23T12:47:00.000-07:00

By Michael Westfall

Unions were created out of economic necessity and grew in strength after the great depression of the 1930’s. Since then no other force has done as much for working people. Past union leaders helped the nation and led their memberships to improved working conditions, wages and benefits. Unions created America’s middle class, which is the envy of the world.

Unlike their predecessors the union officials of today have become self absorbed, sidetracked and disconnected from their Judeo-Christian workforce. One only has to view the employment condition today compared to even twenty years ago to see that top union officials have been ineffectual and detached from their true purpose of protecting their workers and retirees.

Unions were designed to have elected leaders who represented the workers best interests. This is in contrast to today’s top union officials who have been able to twist this definition around and now use the considerable power of their dwindling union memberships to progress their own personal agendas. Workers have no recourse because these top officials have gained absolute power over their members. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Top union officials are powerful politicians that are tightly connected to the Democratic Party. The quandary is that in teaming up with the liberal Democrats, they have been meandering into secular arenas where they don’t belong. This wastes time and resources fighting for non-labor related moral issues, labeling these moral issues as labor issues. They are forcing these potent anti-family concepts such as same sex marriage and abortion onto the backs of their Judeo-Christian workforce. They then use their substantial political power and influence to deliver their memberships votes to the feet of the Democrats who in turn work legislatively to institute these anti-family cultural changes.

Union officials view their retirees and workers as brainless puppets who march in lockstep and vote as told. They are wrong, however, the success of organized labor officials to organize their workers and retirees to actively swing votes to liberal Democrats is one of the most overlooked and dangerous issues facing Republicans.

With the upcoming governmental elections, America is on the slippery slope of becoming a non-Christian secular nation.

Union officials preach that all of labor’s problems are the fault of Republicans. They are enamored with and support ultra liberal anti-Biblical issues like abortion and same sex marriage, which they say, are only “small wedge” secondary issues that are used by divisive people to divide the union. This is false. These are huge issues, and they are, in fact, splitting the unions right down the middle as Christian retirees and workers deeply question the pitiful ultra liberal Democratic agenda that union officials champion.

AFL-CIO and UAW officials are using union resources to organize and send mass mailings to millions of workers and retirees demonizing Conservative Republicans in order to garner votes for their Democratic buddies. To get out the Democratic vote, UAW President Ronald Gettlefinger is recruiting retirees to bash Republicans. This is the same Gettlefinger who went to court a few months ago and betrayed these very same struggling retirees by forcing them to take huge health care cuts with a stroke of his pen at Solidarity House.

UAW retires don’t get raises and have no cost of living protection like Gettlefinger and other union representatives, so they fall further and further behind with their pensions dwindling buying power. American workers and retirees have never needed representation more then they do today as their pensions, jobs and benefits are disappearing in a cloud of smoke.

It has been the politically sidetracked union leaders who have been derelict in their duties and caught in the headlights like confused deer, not the Republicans. Union officials, like Gettlefinger, have been blind sided, ineffectual and preoccupied with cronyism politics, as companies were allowed to under fund pensions, restructure and export away good American jobs, make profound management mistakes and manipulate the bankruptcy laws. Then they shifted their mistakes onto the blue collar and white collar backs of retirees, workers and taxpayers. With the betrayal of his own retirees, Gettlefinger started the beginning of the end of defined pension and benefit programs in America for all Americans.

Now these self-servicing political union officials, who call themselves leaders, race out of their darkness at election time to promote and re-elect these same Democrats who were in powerful policy making positions as the job loss and gut-wrenching events for workers were occurring. Relative to the horrific costs that American industry is now paying, rather then look inwardly at UAW leadership failures, corporate leadership failures or labor’s so-called Democratic friends’ failures, they exclusively blame the Republicans. This is myopic and ridiculous. Rather then call their Democratic buddies to task on the moral issues they join them.

Everyone knows that the liberal Democrats have always been known as the tax-and-spend party. In my state of Michigan, it was the conservative Republican Governor John Engler who reduced and capped home taxes so people could afford to keep their homes. The Democrats fought him all of the way.
On the other hand, Michigan's present Liberal Democrat Governor, Jennifer Granholm, who is running for Governor for her second term, campaigns that she is concerned and wants to protect Michigan’s children from predators and violent videos. She says this while as a Catholic she supports abortion rights. This is in stark difference to Dick De Vos, her opponent in the Governor’s race, who supports strong family values.

How can any civilized thinking government leader look into the face of a perfectly developed dead aborted baby, see the tiny hands and feet of these legally unborn children and not have any feeling for the child or remorse for being a major part of the process? No pro-life voter should support Granholm.

To be in a powerful political position, such as Governor Granholm, and be able to help end such a gruesome practice but refuse, and then at election time call yourself concerned with children in order to get re-elected is political doubletalk. Granholms hypocritical and politically correct position on abortion is directly opposite from the position of her Catholic church. No pro-life Catholic should vote for Granholm.

So what has Granholm done for Michigan’s economy?

When Dick Armey, Chairman of Freedom Works, talks of Granholm’s appalling economic record for Michigan, he brings up Michigan’s unemployment rate of 7.1%, which is the worst in the nation and getting worse day by day. Michigan has lost almost 100,000 jobs under Granholms political tenure.

Another significant point is the particular Granholm endorsers that Michigan’s large AFL-CIO is using in their political mailers attacking Dick De Vos. One of their key sources in their material is the Triangle Foundation, which is a controversial; highly partisan, and militantly left wing homosexual lobbying group.

Under Granholm’s watch hard-pressed Michigan tax payers recently doled out $40,000 in government funds to the Triangle Foundation.

Gary Glenn, Michigan’s American Family Association President, said this is subsidizing a homosexual activist group hostile to the values of most Michigan families. They are also a group who campaigned against protecting marriage, who defends sexual torture demonstrations and supports handing out condoms to elementary school kids. Glenn said this group viciously attacks Christians, traditional family values, the Boy Scouts and the chief of staff of this group raised money at the Detroit Bondage Club by being stripped, tied to a cross and flogged.

This is appalling to Michigan families. The fact that Granholm promoters would welcome and use such an endorsement from such a group puts up a red flag to Michigan voters larger then the Mackinaw Bridge. Any governor that cozies up to such anti-family groups should not be re-elected…they should be recalled.

On the national front and in all of the elections, not everyone believes the fiction that Democrats are good for working Americans and retirees. One only has to look back to when liberal President Bill Clinton was in office.

Clinton and his wife Hillary didn’t use the Presidential power and position to help fellow Americans make gains in healthcare. In fact, it was liberal Clinton who was proposing the increase of Medicaid costs for our elderly. Because of his double-talking dicey positions, many called Clinton “slippery Bill”. Healthcare is a critical issue for American workers, yet union officials didn’t denounce Clinton but rather continued to support him.

If you want to know where your jobs have gone, talk to the Democrats.

During Clinton’s tenure and during a time of record corporate profits by American based multi-national companies, the huge transfer of jobs from our country was getting under way. Hundreds of thousands of well-paid American jobs were transferred to third world nations to exploited foreign workers paid shamefully low wages. They were then used as unfair competitive examples of how our Middle American workers were overpaid and under worked in an effort to reduce American jobs to the lowest common denominator. How did Clinton address this terrible dilemma? He didn’t cut corporate welfare; he firmly supported NAFTA, which eliminated untold thousands more of good US jobs. Other nations laughed at us all the way to the bank as the lives of our workers were being devastated. If American workers gave back every benefit ever negotiated and 90% of their wages, they may starve in Detroit and Flint, but they would still be uncompetitive compared to the American based multinational companies’ exploited foreign workers in third world countries.

In view of this, these union leaders still stood by their liberal Democrat hero, internationalist Bill Clinton. Even though the Democratic Party platform for the 1992 election didn’t bother to mention the word “union” one time, American union officials were still enamored with the liberal Democrats.

When it comes to moral issues, when Clinton was in the White House, one can easily remember his “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military and his strong support for the slaughter of unborn Americans through abortion. One must not forget Monica and the Clinton impeachment debacle where Clinton’s true nature and Democratic family values became glaringly apparent.

Yes, Clinton may have had the morals of an alley cat, and he did leave America totally unprotected to the international economy, which permanently damaged Middle America, but it mattered not to these top union officials.

The truth is that none of these politicians have ever suffered along with working Americans. It was business as usual for them, and they personally saw to it that they individually have been insulated, protected and very well taken care of, unlike the victimized workers they represent.

In conclusion, today America’s top organized labor officials are solid political comrades to the liberal Democrats now running for office. They are availing their time, prestige and resources to do all in their power to get these Democrats re-elected.Rather then take the high road and promote Godly views, they ignore the Word of God to promote anti-Biblical views and support the prominent liberal Democratic politicians that do likewise. For these officials to expect union members to choose between their anti-Biblical agenda versus God and his Bible is pathetic.

There are few rank-and-filers willing to openly take the heat and challenge these top union officials who have reputations for being successful bullies, but workers can no longer afford to be silently brain dead or comatose on these issues if they care about their families and nation.

Our country is at a climatic point in the fight to save the family, and the direction of our culture hangs in the balance. Our children have to live in this nation after we are gone. They will never forgive us if we devastate our culture for them and their future families.

Vote wisely America.

Michael Westfall
michaelwestfall.tripod.com

The Consequence of Judicial Activism

2006-10-20T10:18:00.000-07:00

Dear God:

Why didn't you save the school children at. ..

Moses Lake, Washington 02/02/1996
Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97
Pearl, Mississippi 10/01/1997
West Paducah, Kentucky 12/01/1997
Stamp, Arkansas 12/15/1997
Jonesboro, Arkansas 03/24/1998
Edinboro, Pennsylvania 04/24/1998
Fayetteville, Tennessee 05/19/1998
Springfield, Oregon 05/21/1998
Richmond, Virginia 06/15/1998
Littleton, Colorado 04/20/1999
Taber, Alberta, Canada 05/28/1999
Conyers, Georgia 05/20/1999
Deming, New Mexico 11/19/1999
Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/06/1999
Mt. Morris Twp., Michigan 02/29/2000
Savannah, Georgia 03/10/2000
Lake Worth, Florida 05/26/2000
New Orleans, Louisiana 09/26/2000
Baltimore, Maryland 01/17/2001
Santee, California 03/05/2001
Williamsport, Pennsylvania 03/07/2001
El Cajon, California 03/22/2001
Gary, Indiana 03/30/2001
Caro, Michigan 11/12/2001
New York, New York 01/15/2002
New Orleans, Louisiana 04/14/2003
Red Lion, Pennsylvania 04/24/2003
Cold Spring, Minnesota 09/24/2003
Red Lake, Minnesota 03/21/2005
Jacksboro, Tennessee 11/08/2005
Essex, Vermont 08/24/2006
Bailey, Colorado 09/26/2006
Cazenovia, Wisconsin 09/29/2006
Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania 10/03/2006?

Sincerely,

Concerned Student

-----------------------------------------------------

Reply:

Dear Concerned Student:

Sorry,

I am not allowed in schools!

Sincerely,

God

----------------------------------------------------------

How did this get started?...

-----------------

Perhaps when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained
She didn't want any prayer in our schools.

And the courts said, OK.

------------------

Then, someone said you better not
Read the Bible in school,
the Bible that says
"thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal,
And love your neighbors as yourself,"

And the courts said, OK...

-----------------

Dr. Benjamin Spock said
We shouldn't spank our children
When they misbehaved
Because their little personalities
Would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.

And we said,
An expert should know what he's talking about
So we won't spank them anymore..

------------------

Then someone said
Teachers and principals better not
Discipline our children when they misbehave.
And the school administrators said
No faculty member in this school
Better touch a student when they misbehave
Because we don't want any bad publicity,
And we surely don't want to be sued.

And we accepted their reasoning...

------------------

Then someone said,
let's let our daughters have abortions if they want,
And they won't even have to tell their parents.

And the courts said, that's a grand idea.

------------------

Then some wise school board member said,
Since boys will be boys
And they're going to do it anyway,
let's give our sons all the condoms they want,
So they can have all the fun they desire,
And we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.

And the courts said, that's another great idea...

------------------

Then some of our top elected officials said
It doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs.

And we said,
It doesn't matter what anybody, including the President,
Does in private as long as we have jobs and the economy is good....

------------------

And someone else took that appreciation a step further
And published pictures of nude children
And then stepped further still by
Making them available on the Internet.

And the courts said, everyone's entitled to free speech....

------------------

And the entertainment industry said,
let's make TV shows and movies that promote
Profanity, violence and illicit sex...
And let's record music that encourages
Rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes...

And the courts said,
it's just entertainment
And it has no adverse effect
And nobody takes it seriously anyway,
So go right ahead.

------------------

Now we're asking ourselves
Why our children have no conscience,
Why they don't know right from wrong,
And why it doesn't bother them to
Kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.

------------------

Undoubtedly,
If we thought about it long and hard enough,
We could figure it out.
I'm sure it has a great deal to do with...

"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW"

Youth Leadership School

2006-10-10T14:39:00.000-07:00

Anchorage, AK
November 18-19, 2006

Presented by, The Leadership Institute
Non-Profit Non-Partisan Educational Organization

Since 1979, no other organization has prepared as many students with the nuts-and-bolts techniques necessary to be effective youth leaders as the Leadership Institute. The Institute was founded in 1979 by Morton C. Blackwell to train the next generation of conservative leaders; to date we have trained over 50,700 conservatives.

Attend the Youth Leadership School and join the ranks of Morton Blackwell’s notable graduates:
· Karl Rove, Senior Political Strategist for President George W. Bush
· United States Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
· Dr. Ralph Reed, Former Executive Director, Christian Coalition

If you’re serious about being an effective leader, the YLS will help you:
· Launch a successful career in politics
· Get Out The Vote for your candidate
· Build an effective student organization
· Use the media to get your message out

Topics include special projects, literature layout and design and strategies on building your organization.

For only $30, we will provide meals, course materials, and lodging for those who are traveling far from home to attend. This training is for those who love their conservative cause enough to want to learn how to win for it.

If you have any questions, please contact Ryan Nichols,

Director of the Youth Leadership School

(703) 247-2000 ext 380

rnichols@limail.us

Judicial Retention

2006-10-10T14:19:00.000-07:00

The following is a list of Alaska judges up for retention this year along with the Governor who appointed them and year of appointment. There are no Supreme Court justices on the ballot.

Larry Weeks ~~~~~ Cowper (D) 1990
Larry Zervos ~~~~~ Cowper (D) 1990
Richard Erlich ~~~~ Hickel (A) 1991
Ben Esch ~~~~~~~~ Knowles (D) 1996
Joel Bolger ~~~~~~~ Knowles (D) 1997 District
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Murkowski (R) 2003 Superior
Harold Brown ~~~~~ Knowles (D) 1996
Charles Huguelet ~~~ Murkowski (R) 2003
Peter Michalski ~~~~ Sheffield (D) 1985
William Morse ~~~~ Knowles (D) 2002
Eric Smith ~~~~~~~ Knowles (D) 1996
John Suddock ~~~~~ Knowles (D) 2002
Fred Torrisi ~~~~~~ Knowles (D) 1996
Sen Tan ~~~~~~~~~ Knowles (D) 1996
Philip Volland ~~~~~ Murkowski (R) 2003
Michael Wolverton ~ Knowles (D) 1996
Leonard Devaney ~~ Knowles (D) 2002
Randy Olsen ~~~~~~ Murkowski (R) 2003
Mark Wood ~~~~~~ Knowles (D) 2002
Kevin Miller ~~~~~~ Knowles (D) 1999
Brian Clark ~~~~~~~ Murkowski (R) 2003
William Estelle ~~~~ Murkowski (R) 2003
Gregory Heath ~~~~ Murkowski (R) 2003
David Landry ~~~~~ Murkowksi (R) 2004
John Lohff ~~~~~~~ Hickel (A) 1991
Gregory Motyka ~~ Hickel (A) 1991
Sigurd Murphy ~~~~ Hickel (A) 1992
Stephanie Rhoades ~ Hickel (A) 1992
Jack Smith ~~~~~~~ Murkowski (R) 2003
John Wolfe ~~~~~~~~ Murkowski (R) 2004
Winston Burbank ~~~ Murkowski (R) 2003
Jane Kauvar ~~~~~~~ Hammond (R) 1981

Social Security Benefits to Illegal Aliens

2006-06-12T08:15:00.000-07:00

THESE ARE THE SENATORS WHO VOTED TO GIVE ILLEGAL ALIENS SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY, THESE POLITICIANS NEED TO BE DEFEATED IN 2006, 2008 OR 2010 WHENEVER THEY COME UP FOR OFFICE. SEND THIS TO ANYONE YOU KNOW IN ANY OF THE STATES LISTED. THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES NEED TO KNOW THIS INFORMATION. THAT IS UNLESS THEY DO NOT MIND SHARING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY WITH FOREIGN WORKERS WHEN AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE BEING LEFT OUT.

Grouped by Home State
Alabama:
Alaska:Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona:McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas:Lincoln (D-AR), YeaPryor (D-AR), Yea
California:Boxer (D-CA), YeaFeinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:Dodd (D-CT), YeaLieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware:Biden (D-DE), YeaCarper (D-DE), Yea
Florida:Martinez (R-FL), Yea
Georgia:
Hawaii:Akaka (D-HI), YeaInouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:
Illinois:Durbin (D-IL), YeaObama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana:Bayh (D-IN), YeaLugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa:Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky:
Louisiana:Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Maine:
Maryland:Mikulski (D-MD), YeaSarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts:Kennedy (D-MA), YeaKerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:Levin (D-MI), YeaStabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:
Mississippi:
Missouri:
Montana:Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska:Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Nevada:Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:
New Jersey:Lautenberg (D-NJ), YeaMenendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
New York:Clinton (D-NY), YeaSchumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:
North Dakota:Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio:DeWine (R-OH), YeaVoinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma:
Oregon:Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island:Chafee (R-RI), YeaReed (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota:Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Tennessee:
Texas:
Utah:
Vermont:Jeffords (I-VT), YeaLeahy (D-VT), Yea
Virginia:
Washington:Cantwell (D-WA), YeaMurray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Wisconsin:Feingold (D-WI), YeaKohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming:

Preambles

2006-06-09T15:33:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles,

This is a simple compilation of all 50 States' Constitutional Preambles, and I thought it perfect complement to the topic of Phyllis's radio show this coming Saturday with Alan Sears to discuss the ACLU. After the Preambles, I've also copied "a quote of the month" from Jay Leno that dovetails with the subject.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of all wisdom." By His grace, may we be wiser still in the future.

Faithfully, Carolee

The Preambles of all 50 States Of The United States:

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting us to enjoy.

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .. Establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of

Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy. Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of

Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... And imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction ..

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness .. Establish this Constitution

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. Establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution ...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ..

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to .enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other .

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia a reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties .. establish this Constitution.

Reviewing these Preambles that wisely seek the blessings of God from all 50 State Constitutions, it's obvious that the ACLU and supremacist judges are dead wrong!

MAY GOD CONTINUE TO BLESS AMERICA

Quote of the Month from Jay Leno:
With hurricanes, tornadoes, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this isa good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

EFA Legislative Alert, May 25, 2006

2006-05-26T07:13:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Three items tonight. 1) Constitutional Marriage protection in Alaska 2) Governor Murkowski’s plans and 3) Federal Marriage Protection Act (MPA). All three items are linked to one another.

1) Thank you to everyone who has contacted Governor Murkowski’s office to urge him to call a special session of the legislature so that we can put a constitutional amendment on this November’s ballot. I was told by the governor’s office that they have received a number of calls and many of you have contacted me and let me know you called. I want to update you on what I have been told by the Governor’s office. I have spoken to three different staffers in the Governor’s office. The young lady who apparently has been assigned to field calls on this subject was quite ill informed on what has transpired already and what will happen next. I explained the history and current state of affairs to her and much of what I told her was big news to her. I am hopeful that everyone else in the Governor’s office was better informed. As an example, this young lady told me the Governor has it under control and had already planned to pass a constitutional amendment if the legislature failed to pass their bill (SJR20/HJR32). However, he has no intention of calling a special session. Well, if that is the case, he cannot pass a constitutional amendment because it takes the legislature and the people to do that. No special session – no constitutional amendment this year. Of course, the constitution provides one other avenue, a constitutional convention. That is out of the question, it would be harder yet to get that approved. This young lady informed me the Governor won’t be calling a special session because there were not enough votes to get the measure on the ballot in the regular session. Well, yes and no. Yes, there were not enough votes to pass HJR32/SJR20 in the regular session. Both houses came up a couple of votes shy. That is why a special session is needed. That is why Governor’s ALWAYS call special sessions, because they did not get what they wanted during the regular session! The legislature failed to pass an oil production tax in the regular session so the Governor called a special session. Calling a special session would highlight the Governor’s support for a constitutional marriage amendment that would protect any further intrusions into the institution of marriage by homosexual activists and their friends on the Alaska Supreme Court.

Lest you think I am beating a dead horse to death I want to tell you that if the Governor fails to call the special session then fine. That decision is his and the responsibility for doing so or failing to do so is his. BUT, if we had failed to ASK him to do so, the responsibility would be ours! We have done the right thing by calling this important issue to his attention and asking for action on his part. We have done our part and can rest easy at night knowing we were faithful to do what we could.

That leads me to number 2 on the list. I received notice today that the Governor will be announcing his decision to run or not to run at 7:30 am tomorrow morning in Fairbanks. By the time you read this we should all know the answer to the Big question.

Now, number three. The U.S. Senate will vote on the federal Marriage Protection Act (MPA) on June 5th and the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote around July 4th. Please call our congressional delegation and ask them to vote YES on the Marriage Protection Act. This is vitally important. It is very easy to call these public servants and let them know you are a citizen of Alaska and you support the MPA.

Senator Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
Senator Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665

And

Representative Don Young (202) 225-5765

Thank you for all you do.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To subscribe to this email alert, email Debbie

EFA Legislative Alert, May 16, 2006

2006-05-17T07:17:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Please call the Governor’s office at (907) 465-3500 and tell Governor Frank Murkowski that you would like him to call a special session of the legislature so that they can pass a resolution putting the same-sex marriage benefits issue on the ballot in November of this year.

The Governor needs to have a “Ronald Reagan” moment and do the bold thing and act now!
If he does nothing, the soonest we could vote on a constitutional amendment would be November, 2008 and by then the state will have been paying spousal benefits to homosexual partners of state employees for over two years!
If Governor Murkowski does nothing, private business will be forced to pay spousal benefits to homosexuals just like they do to their married employees.
The House and Senate were each only a couple of votes shy of attaining the 2/3 majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment.
The Governor spotlighting this issue would help those on the fence to make up their mind and vote the will of their constituents.
The marriage amendment passed by almost 70% in 1998 making marriage between one man and one woman the ONLY marriage recognized by the state.
The Alaska Supreme Court ignored the Constitution when they voted 5-0 last October to force the state to pay spousal benefits to homosexual couples.
This ruling by the court only adds homosexual couples to the list of those receiving marriage benefits, as though they are married!
The Governor does not have a mind to call a special session at this point but his office is getting calls and they need to get more calls to make him to understand how important this issue is!

Please call Governor Frank Murkowski at 907 465 3500 and send this email to your list!

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To subscribe to this email alert, email Debbie

EFA Legislative Alert, May 15, 2006

2006-05-16T07:47:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

I have heard from many of you who have called the Governor’s office to request he call a special session to address the issue of the State of Alaska paying spousal benefits to homosexual partners. Thank you! If you have not called please do so now and pass this alert on to your list. We must have people call the Governor at 907 465 3500 and request he call a special session to address this issue.

Here is a recap of what has transpired so far:

In 1998 the legislature passed a resolution by a 2/3 majority that asked the people to approve adding a new section to the constitution. The new language read: “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.” In November, 1998 voters approved the measure by almost 70%. The new language was added to the constitution.

Homosexual activists then sued the state saying that it was unfair that married state employees receive benefits for their spouses while homosexual employees do not get spousal benefits paid to their partners. The case went to the Alaska Supreme Court. The court decided 5-0 in October, 2005 (just this last fall!) that the rights of these homosexual employees were being violated. The court said that since the constitution does not allow homosexuals in Alaska to marry and since you have to be married to receive spousal benefits, these people were being denied their equal protection rights. This refers to their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The court completely ignored the new language that had been added in 1998 and ruled the state MUST pay those benefits to homosexual couples.

When this decision was announced our Governor issued a statement of outrage. Since then we have heard nothing from his administration. Yes, he has been busy with a myriad of other issues, important issues I grant you but none as important as protecting marriage.

The state legislature filed a resolution in the House and one in the Senate this year. The resolutions were designed to add a clarifying statement to the marriage amendment that spelled out that marriage and the things which go with marriage are only for one man and one woman. In other words, this resolution asked the people if they wished to strengthen the marriage statement in our constitution.

You can think of it as an ongoing conversation between the court and the people of Alaska on this subject. The court has spoken and the resolution asks the people of Alaska to vote in November, 2006 on whether they want to respond to the courts ruling or let it stand.

Because this is a constitutional amendment a 2/3 majority vote was again required and the legislature came up short a couple of votes in each house. The session ended last week and now SJR20 and HJR32 are both dead. The legislature may take the matter up again in January, 2007. BUT, even if they do and even if they act with lightning speed, the soonest the measure could be taken to the ballot for a vote of the people is November, 2008. By that time the sate will have been paying these benefits to homosexual couples as though they are married for two years or more.

There is one remedy at this time. The Governor has the legal authority to call a special session and ask the legislature to take up the matter again. His doing so would send a big message to our legislature that he fully supports their efforts. The office of Governor has a lot of power and can be used to bring about great good or not. Governor Murkowski could call a special session and if the legislature passed a resolution during that special session, the people could vote on it this November.

I am well aware that the Governor has no mind to do such a thing at this point in time. If he does not call it, that will be his decision and he will be responsible for it. If he does not call a special session because we don’t ask, then the responsibility lies with us.

God is in charge and I am asking you to also pray for HIS will to be done. We cannot see the future, only our Almighty God can. His Word says, “We have not, because we ask not”. Won’t you join me in asking God to intervene and asking the Governor to call a special session?

Governor Frank Murkowski can be reached at 907 465 3500. Call and tell his office you want the Governor to call a special session to address the issue of spousal benefits for state employee’s homosexual partners. Tell him you want to vote on this issue in November.

If you would do one more thing, please write me back to let me know you called the Governor’s office so we can get an idea of how effective we are being.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

EFA Legislative Alert, May 11, 2006

2006-05-12T07:19:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

I am back from Juneau and caught up on hugs and kisses, laundry, and school! Sleep is next!

Our Grassroots Lobby training class in Juneau was a success. We had twelve students attending the class. Lt. Governor Loren Leman and Mike Pauley were the teachers. Tuckerman Babcock was unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts with the legislature. The comments from all attending the classes were good. We had one high school student attend who tells me she had a great time and learned more in one day than she could have learned in a year of classroom study about the legislative process. We plan to do this again and will give you more advance notice so you can plan to attend. Do put Sept. 22-24 on your calendar for the annual Eagle Council in Washington, D.C. Phyllis Schlafly organizes the event and the speakers are tremendous and the fellowship is even better!

We ended the session with MANY victories. I want to thank you for your help in making those possible and thanks be to GOD and our Lord JESUS CHRIST! All good things come from God!

HOWEVER, we lost one very important battle. The legislature failed to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to clarify that marriage is ONLY for one man and one woman and ditto the things that go along with marriage. The votes were not quite sufficient to pass SJR20/HJR32 and so this is what will happen next:

The state will begin implementing the issuance of spousal benefits to all homosexual partners of state employees. This will probably happen soon. Municipalities and private sector employers will soon have to follow suit or be charged with violating the “rights” of homosexual couples.

Even if the legislature deals with this issue IMMEDIATELY in January, the next opportunity to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot will be November, 2008. Not soon enough!

I have one last request of you. If you cared enough to read this far will you please call the office of Governor Frank Murkowski at (907) 465 3500 and ask the Governor to call a special session to allow the people of Alaska to vote on this constitutional amendment.

The bill that embodied this amendment is DEAD; it died on Tuesday at 5 PM. Our only remedy is for the Governor to call a special session and resurrect the bill.

Please call 907 465 3500 and tell Governor Murkowski you DO NOT WANT THE STATE TO PAY SPOUSAL BENEFITS TO HOMOSEXUAL PARTNERS OF STATE EMPLOYEES AND ASK HIM TO CALL A SPECIAL SESSION TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION SO THE PEOPLE CAN VOTE ON THIS ISSUE.

There is a high probability that the Governor will not call a special session but YOU HAVE NOT BECAUSE YOU ASK NOT. The worst he can so is no. Please pray about it and call 907 465 3500.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

An Open Letter to Washington Pastors

2006-05-08T07:17:00.000-07:00

May 5, 2006

Dear Fellow Pastors:

I'm writing you today on a matter for which I feel great urgency. I would humbly ask you, my fellow pastor, to read this letter in a thoughtful and prayerful manner. I send it to you as a brother who highly esteems you and your ministry and also feels a growing sense of accountability to God about this matter I bring to you.

We all know that Jesus Christ is the only lasting and sufficient answer to the moral, spiritual and social challenges facing our state and nation today. Perhaps like me, you sense that we have been placed here for this special window of opportunity. It is a window that I believe is rapidly closing and to which we will not likely return in our lifetime. I'm speaking about the opportunity we as pastors have to call our people and this state to uphold God's clear will and design for marriage.

Why do I believe this window is unique? First, years ago we gave our culture over to a "no-fault divorce" legal system that has decimated marriage and families for the past four decades. We all minister to the effects of that sad reality every day. Secondly, our state is currently the front line of a national movement to legalize same-sex marriage. Washington is one of three battleground states right now for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender (GLBT) movement. Our State Supreme Court has postponed release of a decision on the state Defense of Marriage Act for many months now.

The most likely scenario unfolding currently is the following:

The Washington State Supreme Court will wait until after the November election to release their decision as three Justices are up for re-election.
Success or failure of the Referendum 65 ballot measure drive to repeal the newly protected class status of "sexual orientation" in state law will send a clear signal to the Governor and Legislature either way.
That combined with both the Governor's and the Legislature's current support of gay rights will most likely lead to a rapid series of events that will
a.) strike down Washington's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and
b.) call for gay marriage as the law of Washington State through either court mandate or legislative action.

Such decisions of the court or the legislature could only be repealed by an amendment to the State Constitution, a very difficult process that would first have to pass both houses of the legislature by a two-thirds majority and then a popular vote by a majority of Washingtonians.

Simply put, failure to get this Initiative on the ballot in the next month will shift momentum decidedly to the gay marriage movement in our state. It will also provide the national gay marriage movement with one of the first clear citizen-based victories in the nation. It will be just the first of what they hope will be a nation-wide shift in state-by-state battles for gay marriage.

However, if we are successful in gathering just 114,440 valid signatures in the next month, the momentum will most likely remain on the side of the majority of Washingtonians who favor protecting marriage, family and the children of our State by keeping marriage between one man and one woman.

Stay with me just a little longer, please! What follows is the main reason I'm writing.

I know that, even as pastors who agree that God's stated and clear will for marriage is that it be between one man and one women, there is still a difference of opinion among us over whether or not we should publicly call our people to engage in the legislative process to protect authentic marriage. In no way do I question the sincerity or motives of those who think we should not. But I do seriously question the wisdom of such a practice.

The most frequent reasons I hear from pastors for not encouraging congregations publicly on this issue are the following:

To challenge our people about this Referendum risks offending and alienating potential seekers, family members of gays and lesbians and those in the congregation who do not believe gay marriage is wrong. It is more important to keep the focus on the Gospel and not to alienate someone who might otherwise come to saving faith in Jesus Christ.
It is not the role of the church to involve itself in political matters, this Referendum and issue being one such political issue.
It is our job to keep the Gospel and the Word of God central and not get sidetracked on social hot-button issues of our day.

With utmost respect for those who hold to these perspectives, I would challenge this thinking on the following grounds:

It is not the loving or kind thing to model and encourage silence on a matter of such fundamental biblical proportions as marriage, particularly at this critical time in the battle, all for the stated intent of some possible short-term gain of not offending some. Jesus spoke very directly, clearly and lovingly to people's particular sins when calling them to faith and discipleship in him.
God's word is clear in Romans 1 that failure to stop people's sinful drift into growing sexual immorality will and must lead to further judgment by God. It is our own parishioners, our own children, grandchildren and friends who will find themselves swallowed up in a Sodom-like culture where they themselves eventually succumb, as did Lot and his family, to immorality and destruction. The truly loving and caring thing to do is to be salt in a corrupt society as long as we have voice. Short-term potential gains are not sufficient reason to sidestep long-term church and national health.
This is not an "either-or" issue (either we keep the Gospel central or engage in social issues). We are called to both preach the good news of eternal life in Jesus Christ and be the prophetic voice of loving truth to God's people and our culture. If we will not speak out boldly to our people on this issue that is at the heart of the image of God in mankind, the first divinely ordained human institution (marriage) and God's declared judgment upon any progressively rebellious people (Romans 1), we must honestly ask ourselves what publicly sanctioned evil we will take a public stand against in our churches?
As participants in a democratic republic, we the people are the ones given by God the responsibility to determine our laws and choose our leaders. How can we ask God to move and shape the hearts and minds of those who govern us when we, the self-governed, do little or nothing to call God's own people to exercise moral and spiritual responsibility in a matter of such great importance to all?

As pastors we cannot escape the responsibility to be "watchmen on the wall", to speak to our fellow countrymen and congregations when we see the judgment of God descending upon this state and nation (Ezekiel 33).

I encourage you to do the following:

Take 15 minutes today and listen to the DVD sent out by Sound the Alarm this past week. It's excellent and well worth your time.
Call God's people under your care to passionate prayer for the homosexual community among us and for laws that lead to righteousness.
Personally encourage your people to sign the petition for Referendum 65 in the next three weeks.
Do whatever else God calls you to do to make a difference for marriage in our state.

Thank you for your gracious consideration of this critical matter for all of us.

Respectfully in Jesus Christ,

John S. Repsold
Fourth Memorial Church
Spokane, WA

EFA Legislative Alert, May 5, 2006

2006-05-05T10:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends,

I will write later with more but for now, Praise the Lord!

Please see Anchorage Daily News Article for details.

Crime bill redefining attacks on fetus OK'd
ABORTION CONFLICT: House votes 30-9 to approve measure.
SB20 passes house by overwhelming majority

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

FDA Pre-Emption Policy and the Prevention of Public Health

2006-05-05T07:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles,

On March 22, I testified before the FDA ADHD Drug Hearing in Gaithersbury, Md. I spoke about the role of the public schools as the frequent gateway to the identification of so-called ADHD students and their subsequent drugging. I represented both Eagle Forum and Ablechild. I was privileged to meet and hear Dr. Grace Jackson at the hearing. On page 8 of her attached report she states that "it should be obvious that the FDA's preemption policy poses a grave threat to public safety, and that this precedent must be overturned by Congressional law." As demonstrated by the March 22 committee, the FDA is not looking out for children. Please read this report, contact your congressmen and senators, and forward.

Thank You,

Sharon S. Kientz
Retired Teacher
Sierra USD Trustee
Grandmother
California Eagle Forum Board Member
Ablechild Board Member
Auberry, CA
559-855-8422

ADHD, Drug Labels, and the FDA: The Continuing Pre-Emption of Public Health
by Grace E. Jackson, MD
March 28, 2006

Last week, two separate advisory committees of the Food and Drug Administration assembled in the suburbs of Washington to discuss the risks of existing or proposed treatments for the condition known as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD. Contrary to the major news reports – namely, that the FDA hearings were convened for the purpose of discussing the safety of psychostimulants – the primary objective of the FDA appears to have been the consolidation of weaker drug labels. As such, the recent ADHD hearings were an important test run of policy revisions which are being implemented in support of the FDA’s doctrine of federal preemption.

Beginning in 2002, the FDA initiated a practice of intervening on behalf of drug companies in litigation where plaintiffs attempted to recover damages for medication-related injuries. Under the policy of implied preemption, the Food and Drug Administration has maintained that the very act of approving a drug and preparing its label precludes any subsequent claims by litigants at the State level. What is preempted is the attempt of individuals to obtain compensation for damages which arise from a manufacturer’s or clinician’s failure to warn about hazards associated with medical treatments.

The FDA’s preemption policy provides the crucial context for understanding the timing and perceived urgency of new rules for prescription drug labeling. On January 24, 2006, the agency published revised regulations for the content and format of prescribing information. Critics have feared that these changes will weaken the ability of the FDA to demand pertinent drug product precautions (such as Black Box Warnings, contraindications, or both). Although the changes will not take effect until the end of June, their pending implementation strongly influenced the recent proceedings of the advisory committees when they considered drug treatments for ADHD.

On March 22, 2006, the Pediatric Advisory Committee minimized the severity and the drug-relatedness of psychiatric and cardiac adverse events. Although the committee recommended the preparation of a Medication Guide, describing the potential for stimulants to induce hallucinations, the members did not believe that a Black Box Warning or contraindication would be necessary. Furthermore, the committee downplayed cardiovascular events as infrequent problems occurring only in the context
of pre-existing, structural heart defects. The March 23rd session of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee was similarly dismissive.

Critical observers who attended the aforementioned hearings were impressed by the sham nature of the proceedings. A steady barrage of misinformation was served up by FDA officials, corporately funded academicians, and drug industry representatives. This misinformation revolved around five major themes:

Theme #1: ADHD is a serious medical condition.

Both the FDA and the pharmaceutical representatives suggested repeatedly that ADHD is a serious neurophysiological disorder. In fact, not a single textbook of neurology or pathology identifies ADHD as a medical or serious condition. The database of the National Library of Medicine lists no articles in which ADHD is cited as a cause of hospitalization, serious disability, or death.

Theme #2: Studies have shown that stimulants are the best treatment for ADHD.

On March 22nd and March 23rd, the FDA’s consultant (Dr. Ben Vitiello) and a drug industry spokesman (Dr. Joseph Biederman) completely mischaracterized the results of the federal government’s most important study on ADHD. When discussing the results of the MTA (Multimodal Treatment of ADHD) study, Vitiello and Biederman informed the Advisory Committees that patients treated with stimulants had demonstrated the best outcomes. This conclusion was a distortion of the relevant facts.

In a 1999 publication entitled “Moderators and Mediators of Treatment Response for Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” the MTA research team described results according to different patient subgroups. Among the previously unmedicated children who entered the MTA study, those who remained free of stimulants achieved greater symptomatic improvements by the time of the 14-month
endpoint analysis. This superior outcome for drug-free children is demonstrated in the chart below:

MTA Naturalistic Subgroups Based on Pattern of Medication Use

Change in Scores
0 – 14 months

not medicated before study > unmedicated during study

- 0.68

not medicated before study > medicated during study

- 0.50

* the larger the negative value, the greater the symptomatic improvement

A second distortion of the MTA study occurred when Vitiello and Biederman failed to report the 24-month outcomes, as published in 2004. Following two years of extended therapy with stimulants, the recovery trajectories for medicated children reversed. The severity of their ADHD symptoms intensified. In contrast, the advantages of behavioral therapy endured. This latter finding was all but shocking, because the non-medicated children received behavioral therapy in the form of just one 8-week summer camp. This camp had ended months before the researchers evaluated the long term outcomes. In comparison, the medicated children continued to receive treatment throughout the entire duration of follow-up:

Reversal of Symptom Trajectories for Medicated Children by 24 Months

This graph depicts the average ADHD symptom scores over time (high
scores are bad, low scores are good). By 24 months, all four subgroups
converged. The subgroups are coded here according to medication
status before and during the MTA study: med/med, med/no med, no
med/no med, and no med/med.

Theme #3: Strattera (atomoxetine) and Sparlon (modafnil) are non-stimulants.

Throughout the two days of hearings, both the FDA and industry officials (Cephalon) repeatedly blurred the distinction between central nervous system stimulation and potential drug addiction. The FDA allowed no discussion of the criteria according to which the World Health Organization classifies atomoxetine, modafinil, and other substances as psychostimulants (those criteria being: chemical, pharmacological, and therapeutic properties).

The FDA’s Acting Deputy Director for the Division of Psychiatry Products, Dr. Paul Andreason, repeatedly mischaracterized Strattera as a non-stimulant, basing this claim on his premise that the term stimulant applies only to chemicals which directly inhibit dopamine reuptake, or which directly enhance the synthesis or release of dopamine. In fact, the neuroscience literature supports the existence of many different mechanisms through which central nervous system activation (stimulation) may be achieved. Strattera, like other stimulating substances, is believed to enhance arousal, suppress appetite, and reverse narcolepsy and cataplexy by modulating the effects of norepinephrine in the frontal cortex and brainstem. Other stimulants – such as caffeine – share this property of exerting stimulant effects without directly influencing the process of dopamine reuptake or dopamine release.

A second FDA obfuscation was the claim that stimulants are defined by the potential to produce addiction. While some stimulants are associated with the development of drug liking (euphoria) and drug craving, other stimulants are not. The modification of dopamine transmission within the nucleus accumbens (so-called addiction center) of the brain is a separate issue, divorced from the criteria which are used to identify a substance as a central nervous system stimulant.

While it may seem tedious to belabor the point, the FDA’s repeated failure to correctly identify atomoxetine (on March 22) and modafinil (on March 23) as psychostimulants
has significant implications for product safety, since the consideration of drug risks frequently begins with an analysis of the effects which are shared by an entire class of chemicals (in this case, the stimulants). By blurring the distinction between central nervous system activation and potential addictiveness, the FDA has contributed to a fraudulent marketing scheme which has inured to the advantage of Strattera. If repeated again in the future, the FDA seems committed to aiding and abetting the same marketing fraud with Sparlon.

Theme #4: Sparlon (modafinil) has a low potential for abuse.

Although the Psychopharmacology Advisory Committee concluded its hearing with a rejection of modafinil for pediatric ADHD, the committee’s deliberations were nevertheless alarming. Neither the FDA advisors, nor the FDA officials, challenged the claims of the drug sponsor (Cephalon) that modafinil carried a low potential for abuse. According to Cephalon and its spokesmen, modafinil is unlikely to be abused because its chemical properties and formulation (poor water solubility, uncrushable capsule) make it a poor candidate for intravenous injection. Unfortunately, the advisory committee and the FDA appeared to be oblivious to many important facts about stimulant abuse and addiction. First, it is not necessary to inject or snort stimulants to produce euphorigenic effects. Second, the bulk of the stimulant diversion which is now occurring on high
school and college campuses relates to prescription drugs taken for cognitive or athletic enhancement, rather than for recreational ends (to get high). Third, the FDA ignored
the problems of therapeutic drug dependence, stimulant sensitization (i.e., the phenomenon through which stimulants re-wire the brain in ways which make future chemical dependencies to nicotine and cocaine more likely), and incentive sensitization (i.e., the phenomenon through which stimulants, like other drugs, may create persistent feelings of drug wanting).

Theme #5: The benefits of ADHD drug treatments outweigh their potential risks.

An overall theme of the hearings was the claim that ADHD drugs must remain on the market, because ADHD is a “serious condition” for which stimulants represent the most effective intervention. Throughout the committee discussions, not a single panelist challenged the belief that the benefits of psychostimulants outweigh their potential risks.

Tragically, the FDA did not display the motivation or the knowledge essential to a competent assessment of treatment utility. In evaluating medication effectiveness (as described above), the FDA failed miserably on the job. In evaluating medication safety, the FDA did not address the many serious toxicities which have been consistently associated with stimulant therapy. For example, the FDA neglected to discuss:

Ø the suppression of growth (bones and brain)

Ø the impairment of cerebral blood flow (a likely contribution to cortical atrophy)

Ø the re-wiring of the brain (e.g., sensitizing to nicotine and cocaine)

Furthermore, the FDA completely ignored the findings of researchers in Texas, whose publications in 2005 and 2006 documented an association between methylphenidate (Ritalin) and the emergence of chromosomal damages, similar to those which enhance the risk of cancer.
From the above discussion, it will hopefully be apparent that the Food and Drug Administration is inadequate for the task of ruling on the efficacy and safety of proposed and existing treatments. Several key problems demand resolution:

The FDA does not properly characterize the identity of stimulants.

The FDA should recognize the important distinctions between central nervous system activation, peripheral nervous system activation, and the potential for
addiction. These three properties are distinct and separate features of chemical entities, and the FDA should not be allowed to blur these distinctions for the sake
of marketing advantages.

The FDA does not properly evaluate the safety hazards of psychiatric drugs.

It is apparent that the FDA does not appreciate the common methods which are used by neurotoxicologists to understand the real or expected hazards of psychotropic drugs. For example, the FDA seems oblivious to the fact that many psychiatric medications induce or accelerate programmed cell death, oxidative damage, and/or harmful changes in the stability of the blood brain barrier.

The FDA does not properly attribute causation to drugs when adverse events arise as a result of treatment.

The Naranjo criteria were repeatedly cited by the FDA during the recent hearings, and committee members were discouraged by FDA leaders from concluding that stimulants were a proven cause of serious outcomes. However, the Naranjo criteria, like other models of causation, have only limited relevance for psychoactive substances.

Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction Criteria

adverse reaction has been reported previously
adverse reaction appeared when the drug was administered
adverse reaction improved when the drug was stopped
adverse reaction recurred when the drug was readministered
adverse reaction exhibited dose response (more severe with dose increase)
alternative causes do not explain the observed reaction
adverse reaction did not reappear when a placebo was given
drug was detected in the blood (or other fluids) in toxic concentrations
a similar reaction occurred with the same or similar drug in previous exposures
adverse reaction was confirmed by objective evidence

The world of psychopharmacology has evolved to discuss medication effects in terms of changes in brain anatomy (changes in dendrites and neuronal connections) and gene expression, rather than in terms of neurochemical levels and receptor physiology. What this means is that the CDR (challenge – dechallenge – rechallenge) protocol and the investigation of dose effects may be largely inappropriate for psychiatric drugs: the removal of a medication may not lead to a timely reversal of anatomic changes induced by treatment. Similarly, the FDA should not expect a temporal clustering of adverse effects associated with psychotropics, since the timing of changes in gene expression and neuronal
plasticity (“re-wiring”) can vary greatly both within and between subjects. Furthermore, the FDA continuously disregards the pre-clinical and post-marketing results of laboratory and animal investigations, despite the strength of those studies in demonstrating numerous mechanisms through which psychiatric drugs exert toxic effects.

The FDA does not properly investigate or describe the problems of prescription drug dependence.

Related to the problems described above, the FDA does not acknowledge
the phenomenon of prescription drug dependence. Psychiatric patients are seldom informed about the fact that prescription chemicals can be as addictive as street drugs, from the standpoint of creating intolerable or long-lasting withdrawal syndromes when a patient interrupts or terminates treatment.

It should be obvious that the FDA’s preemption policy poses a grave threat to public safety, and that this precedent must be overturned by Congressional law. It should also be noted that proposed labeling revisions may require modification [see below]. Perhaps most crucially, the FDA should be challenged about an arguable violation of the existing requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 C.F.R. Part 201.57):

“Contraindications: Under this section heading, the labeling shall describe those situations in which the drug should not be used because the risk of use clearly outweighs any possible benefit. These situations include…use of the drug in patients who, because of their particular age…have a substantial risk of being harmed by it.”

Based upon the preceding evidence, the risks of stimulants as treatments for ADHD warrant the highest warning under federal law: a contraindication in children.

With an FDA that regularly displays incompetence and negligence in its deliberations about the efficacy and safety of medications, it cannot possibly be the case that this federal agency possesses the institutional expertise to which courts or litigants should now defer. Indeed, if the FDA is preempting anything, it is the sound practice of medicine, and the integrity of American health care.

What’s Behind the Label ?

On January 24, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration finalized a new rule governing the format and content of prescription drug labeling (21 C.F.R. Part 201). Pertinent to the discussion of drug safety and the FDA’s policy of federal preemption, the following changes may require modification:

Change #1: Removal of the chemical structure from the product label

Significance: Historically, the chemical structure of each drug has been prominently displayed near the top of the product label. This depiction of the spatial arrangement and molecular composition was of value to professionals in characterizing and administering the drug responsibly, because the chemical structure could be used to anticipate therapeutic effects and adverse reactions.

Change #2: Relocation of the contraindications section

Significance: A summary entitled “Highlights of Prescribing Information” has been placed at the very head of the revised product label. The hierarchy of safety information (boxed warning, contraindications, warnings, precautions) has been changed. Although a Boxed Warning section, if applied, will appear immediately and may reiterate serious hazards which appear elsewhere in the product label, the contraindications section
has been moved. Contraindications will now follow, rather than precede, the generally lengthy descriptions about dosage and administration, and dosage forms and strength. This change may dilute the impact or visibility of the most essential information which can appear on a product label, for it is only the contraindication which specifically instructs a clinician to avoid the use of a medication in a specific group of patients or
condition.

Change #3: Subtle change in guidance pertaining to “When to contraindicate”

Significance: Relative to contraindications, the new labeling provision states the following: “Only known hazards, and not theoretical possibilities, must be listed.”
The revised rule also requires that “a causal relationship between exposure to the drug and an adverse reaction is well established.” In contrast, contraindications under the previous regulation were described with the following language: “Known hazards and not theoretical possibilities shall be listed.” While the change in emphasis may be subtle (only known hazards must be listed), there is an implicit tightening of the circumstances in which the FDA will advise restrictions on the use of a drug, due to observed or expected hazards.

References

Andersen, S.L., and Navalta, C.P. (2004) Altering the course of neurodevelopment: a framework for understanding the enduring effects of psychotropic drugs. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 22, 423-440.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 Food and Drugs. Retrieved March 26, 2006 at:
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title21/part201.html

Craniofacial development information resource (Feb 2000). Timeline of craniofacial development. Accessed 3/08/2006 at http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/craniofacial/LynMProject/TIMELINE/TIMELINE.htm

El-Zein, R.A., Abdel-Rahman, S.Z., Hay, M.J., Lopez, M.S., Bondy, M.L., Morris, D.L., and Legator, M.S. (2005). Cytogenetic effects in children treated with methylphenidate. Cancer Letters, 230, 284-291.

El-Zein, R.A., Hay, M.J., Lopez, M.S., Bondy, M.L., Morris, D.L., Legator, M.S., Abdel-Rahman, S.Z. (2006). Reply to Letter to the Editor. Cancer Letters, 231, 146-148.

Gadde, K.M., Yonish, G.M., Wanger, H.R., Foust, M.S., and Allison, D.B. (2006, epub).
Atomoxetine for weight reduction in obese women: a preliminary randomised controlled trials [Abstract]. International Journal of Obesity.

Gehlert, D.R., Dreshfield, L., Tinsley, F., Benvenga, M.J., Gleason, S., Fuller, R.W., et. al. (1998). The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, LY368975, reduces food consumption in animal models of feeding [Abstract]. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 287, 122-127.

Hall, K.M., Irwin, M.M., Bowman, K.A., Frankenberger, W., and Jewett, D.C. (2005).
Illicit Use of Prescribed Stimulant Medication Among College Students. Journal of American College Health, 53, 167-174.

Jackson, G.E. (2005). Rethinking Psychiatric Drugs: A Guide for Informed Consent. Bloomington, IN: Author House.

Kane-Gill, S.L., Kirisci, L., and Pathak, D.S. (2005). Are the Naranjo Criteria Reliable and Valid for Determination of Adverse Drug Reactions in the Intensive Care Unit? The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 39, 1823-1827.

Lambert, N., and Hartsough, C.S. (1998). Prospective Study of Tobacco Smoking and Substance Dependence among Samples of ADHD and Non-ADHD Participants.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 533-544.

Lambert, N.M. (2005). Contribution of childhood ADHD, conduct problems, and stimulant treatment to adolescent and adult tobacco and psychoactive substance abuse.
Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 197-221.

Lambert, N.M., McLeod, M., Schenk, S. (in press). Subjective responses to initial experience with cocaine: An exploration of the incentive-sensitization theory of drug abuse. Addiction.

Larrosa, O., de la Llave, Y., Bario, S., Granizo, J.J., and Garcia-Borreugero, D.
(2001). Stimulant and anticataplectic effects of reboxetine in patients with narcolepsy: a pilot study. Sleep, 24, 282-285.

Lou, H.C., Henriksen, L., and Bruhn, P. (1984). Focal cerebral hypoperfusion in children with dysphasia and/or attention deficit disorder [Abstract]. Archives of Neurology, 41, 825-829.

McCabe, S.E., Teter, C.J., and Boyd, C.J. (2004). The Use, Misuse and Diversion of Prescription Stimulants Among Middle and High School Students. Substance Use & Misuse, 39, 1095-1116.

McCabe, S.E., Teter, C.J., and Boyd, C.J. (in press). Medical use, illicit use and diversion of prescription stimulant medication. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs.
Treatment. Pediatrics, 113, 762-769.

MTA Cooperative Group. (1999). A 14-Month Randomized Clinical Trial of Treatment
Strategies for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry,
56, 1073-1086.

_____. (1999). Moderators and Mediators of Treatment Response for Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry,
56, 1088-1096.

_____. (2004). National Institute of Mental Health Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD Follow-up: Changes in Effectiveness and Growth After the End of

Nasrallah, H.A., Loney, J., Olson, S.C., McCalley-Whitters, M., Kramer, J., and Jacoby, C.G. (1986). Cortical Atrophy in Young Adults With a History of Hyperactivity in Childhood, Psychiatry Research, 17, 241-246.

No author. ITAG-Skull Ossification and the Closing of the Cranial Sutures. Retrieved March 8, 2006 at http://www.trepan.com/ossification/html

Robinson, T.E., and Kolb, B. (1997). Persistent Structural Modifications in Nucleus Accumbens and Prefrontal Cortex Neurons Produced by Previous Experience with Amphetamine. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 8491-8497.

Robinson, T.E., and Berridge, K.C. (2000). Animal Models in Craving Research -The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive-sensitization view. Addiction, 95 (suppl 2), S91-S117.

_____. (2004). Incentive-sensitization and drug ‘wanting.’ Psychopharmacology, 171, 352-353.

Ropes and Gray (2006, February 3). New FDA Rules on Prescription Drug Labeling. Retrieved March 25, 2006, at:
http://www.ropesgray.com/files/tbl_s20News/FileUpload116/1031/Alert_FedReg3922_February%203,%202006.pdf

Strattera.com. About Strattera. Retrieved October 19, 2005 at:
http://www.strattera.com/1_1_about_strattera/1_1_about.jsp

Upadhyaya, H.P., Rose, K., Wang, W., O’Rourke, K., Deas, D., and Brady, K.T. (2005).
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Medication Treatment, and Substance Use Patterns Among Adolescents and Young Adults, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 15, 799-809.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2006, February 3). New Requirements for Prescribing Information. Retrieved March 25, 2006 at:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/regulatory/physLabel/default.htm

Vastag, B. (2001). Pay Attention: Ritalin Acts Much Like Cocaine. JAMA, 286,
905-906.

Viggiano, D., Ruocco, L.A., Arcieri, S., Sadile, A.G. (2004). Involvement of norepinephrine in the control of activity and attentive processes in animal models of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [Abstract]. Neural Plasticity, 11, 133-149.

Wang, G., Volkow, N.D., Fowler, J.S., Ferrieri, R., Schlyer, D.J., Alexoff, D.,
et. al. (1994). Methylphenidate Decreases Regional Cerebral Blood Flow in Normal Human Subjects. Life Sciences, 54, 143-146.

Young, G. (2004, March 1). FDA strategy would pre-empt tort suits. The National Law Journal. Retrieved March 25, 2006 at:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticlePrinterFriendlyNLJ.jsp?id=1076428430132

EFA Legislative Alert, May 3, 2006

2006-05-04T07:12:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Three items tonight, and they are all important.

1) SB20, the Laci and Connor bill was put off AGAIN today. For the third day in a row we were denied a vote on this critical bill. I am not asking you to call on this one because I believe we have done what we can do and must now pray and ask God to intervene and plead the cause of the innocent. Please pray that SB20 will be passed with no amendments tomorrow.

2) SJR20/HJR32, the constitutional marriage amendment is mired and needs ACTION! This is the reason for the RED ALERT. Time is of the essence. This bill must be moved NOW or die. There are several Senators, Representatives who need to be called and spurred to action. We need a 2/3 majority to pass this bill and give Alaskan citizens the opportunity to vote on whether anything but one man and one woman constitutes a marriage.

When talking to the Senators, refer to SJR20 (same as HJR32 but that is the bill number for the Senate). Ask the Senators listed below to vote YES on SJR20. If you want more information go to my Talking Points on the marriage amendment. Do not feel that you must debate this subject. Simply tell them you want to vote on this issue in November and they should pass the bill so you can.

Senator_Albert_Kookesh@legis.state.ak.us
888 288 3473 fax 907 465 2827

Senator_Lyman_hoffman@legis.state.ak.us
866 465 4453 fax 907 465 4623

Senator_Bert_Stedman@legis.staet.ak.us
877 463 3873 fax 907 465 3872

Senator_Bettye_Davis@legis.state.ak.us
800 770 3822 fax 907 465 3756

Senator_Donny_Olson@legis.state.ak.us
800 597 3707 fax 907 465 4821

When talking to the Representatives, refer to HJR32 (same as SJR20 but this is the bill number for the House). Ask the Representatives listed below to vote YES on HJR32. If you want more information go to my Talking Points on the marriage amendment. Do not feel that you must debate this subject. Simply tell them you want to vote on this issue in November and they should pass the bill so you can.

Rep_Tom_Anderson@legis.state.ak.us
800 465 4939 fax 907 465 2418

Rep_Jim_Elkins@legis.state.ak.us
800 303 2455 fax 907 465 3793

Rep_Reggie_Joule@legis.state.ak.us
800 782 4833 fax 465 4586

Rep_Mary_Kapsner@legis.state.ak.us
866 465 4976 fax 907 465 4589

Rep_Gabrielle_LeDoux@legis.state.ak.us
800 865 2487 fax 907 465 4956

Rep_Woodie_Salmon@legis.state.ak.us
800 491 4527 fax 907 465 2197

Rep_Bruce_Weyhrauch@legis.state.ak.us
800 968 6744 fax 907 465 2273

3) Last item. This one requires action, too. The alert is from the American Family Association.

May 2, 2006

Senator Stevens Refuses To Allow The Senate To Vote On Indecency Bill

Urge Sen. Stevens to bring the bill up for a vote

On February 16, 2005, the Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Act was introduced as H.R.310 and sailed through the House, 389-38. This bill raises fines against broadcasters when they violate the indecency laws. Since then Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, has held three sets of hearings. Family and consumer groups have been shortchanged in these hearings, which have resulted in no action. Senator Stevens has held this bill hostage for over 14 months. During the last hearing, Senator Stevens actually loaded the testimony panel with seven broadcast industry executives, while only allowing one non-industry leader. Broadcasters are now suing in federal court. They are claiming a so-called right to broadcast the "f" word, the "s" word and even hardcore pornography into our homes. All the while, H.R. 310 gathers dust in the U.S. Senate because of Sen. Stevens. Why won't Sen. Stevens allow the Senate to vote on the bill? He says the networks are doing a good job policing themselves. Can you believe that a U.S. Senator actually said that?! You also need to remember that this is an election year and broadcasters are very generous political donors. That means that unless there is an outpouring of protest, this bill will do what Sen. Stevens wants—die in committee. AFA made several attempts to discuss our concerns with Senator Stevens. His office staff did not return our calls and emails. Sen. Stevens is a Republican in a Republican controlled Senate. If Sen. Stevens wanted this bill passed, he could have it done months ago. I guess we will see who is more important to the U.S. Senate—the broadcasters or the people.

Take Action

Call Sen. Stevens and ask him to bring H.R. 310 up for a vote. His staff may give you a political run-a-round about why the Senator refuses to allow a vote. Some politicians have a way of talking out of both sides of their mouth. Just be nice and polite and tell his office you expect the Senator to allow a vote.

His direct number is 202-224-3004.

His area office numbers are:
Anchorage, 907-271-5915;
Fairbanks, 907-456-0261;
Juneau, 907-586-7400;
Kenai, 907-283-5808;
Ketchikan, 907-225-6880;
Wasilla, 907-376-7665.

BE SURE TO TELL SEN. STEVENS THE NAME OF THE TOWN IN ALKASA WHERE YOU LIVE!

Finally, forward this to your friends and family.

American Family
Association
P O Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38803
1-662-844-5036
Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved

Thank you for reading to the end! I know I am asking a lot but I am counting on you to join with me in letting these policy makers know what we want. These are all VERY important issues and we need to stand in the gap!

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

When Did Defending Marriage Become an Act of Bigotry?

2006-05-01T13:25:00.000-07:00

Written Testimony by Robert H. Knight, Director, Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America for the Maryland House Judiciary Committee January 31, 2006 Concerning H.B. 48, the Maryland Marriage Amendment.

(This article is included as it relates to Alaska's own SJR20, The Constitutional Amendment to Marriage Bill)

Marriage defenders often hear some pretty amazing claims from opponents, such as, “You want to put bigotry into the Constitution.” or: “You’re against equality and for discrimination.” They’re now even hearing such wild charges from sitting judges.

According to Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock, who took it upon herself on January 20 to strike down Maryland’s marriage law because it doesn’t include unions that exclude a bride or a groom, the very nature of marriage as we have always known is discriminatory.

Since when did defending the integrity of marriage become an act of bigotry? Well, it’s not.

For all of America’s history, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. In fact, all major religions honor marriage. Marriage was created by God and is protected in the law because it is indispensable to human social order. Morality is not bigotry, even if Judge Murdock apparently thinks it is.

Marriage is about more than the union of two people, which is why the law bothers to take an interest. It is about two families joining, about children coming into the world and having a mother and father, about extending kinship patterns, passing on family names and property, and binding the sexes together in a unique, complementary union. If marriage was not so important for what it actually is, we would not even be worrying about its legal status.

But the attempt to eject an entire sex from the equation and then call it “equal,” is not only dishonest but also dangerous. It imposes a lie on people who know better. That leads to tyranny.

It’s one thing for people to have their own ceremonies and declare their affections. It’s a free country; anybody can do that. But it is another thing entirely for the state to recognize a union, create incentives for such a union, and to impose that definition on all organizations and institutions.

Marriage was not – I repeat, not – invented to annoy and exclude homosexuals. Those who accuse marriage defenders of being “bigots” are engaging in name-calling, nothing more.

The term “marriage” refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, “marriage” becomes meaningless. You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it “marriage” than you can leave chocolate out of a “chocolate brownie” recipe. It becomes something else.

Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the definition of marriage; it destroys it. In Scandinavian nations, marriage rights were “expanded” two decades ago to unwed couples, destabilizing the real thing. Over the past decade, the conferral of marriage rights on homosexual couples has nearly finished the job of destroying marriage.

According to a well-documented article, The End of Marriage in Scandinavia , by Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution, acceptance of “gay marriage” has accelerated the process to the point where the vast majority of children in Norway, Sweden and other nations are now born out of wedlock and are being raised essentially by the government. The Netherlands is now on the same path. If that is the kind of future Marylanders want, then Judge Murdock will become the patron saint of a new order in which government will increasingly become both Daddy and Mommy.

Marriage, the Natural Family, and the Best Interests of Children
Marriage is the union of the only type of couple capable of natural reproduction of the human race—a man and a woman. Children need both mothers and fathers, and marriage is society’s way of obtaining them.

Even childless marriages are a social anchor for children, who observe adults as role models. Besides, childless couples can be “surprised” by an unexpected pregnancy, and they can also adopt, giving a child a mother-and-father-based family. Single parents can eventually marry. And marriage is a stabilizing force for all. Even when a couple is past the age of reproduction, the marital and family commitment usually keeps an older man from fathering a child with a younger woman outside wedlock.

Children learn about family life by observing crucial relationships up close: interactions between men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and parents to children of the same and opposite sexes. Human experience and a vast body of social science research show that children do best in married, mother-father households. It is wrong to create fatherless or motherless families by design. The arrangement may gratify some adults, but it is not in the best interests of children.

Homosexual activists and their allies at professional organizations often assert that "science" has proved that children are no different if raised in homosexual households. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) even released a statement to this effect, and featured an article in an AAP journal by a pro-homosexual researcher as the foundation for its assessment. This researcher showed her biases right up front by describing marriage-based family law as “heterosexist.” So much for objective science.

Most "gay parenting" studies compare children in lesbian households with children in heterosexual, single-mother households. The only major study to directly compare children raised in married, single-parent and same-sex households was published by the journal Children Australia, and it revealed that, "Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school, in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples."

The "gay parenting" studies, as a whole, are extremely flawed, with all but a handful written by pro-homosexual researchers. In No Basis: What the studies Don't tell us about same-sex parenting, authors Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai demonstrate that all of these studies are "gravely deficient," with some having self-selected sample sizes of less than a dozen people. Earlier, the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage examined a number of "gay parenting" studies and reported: "The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children reared by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base."

In 2001, a team of pro-homosexual researchers from the University of Southern California did a meta-analysis of "gay parenting" studies and published a refreshingly honest article in American Sociological Review, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" The authors concluded that, yes, studies show that girls are more likely to "be sexually adventurous and less chaste," including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have "fluid" conceptions of gender roles, and that researchers should stop trying to cover this up in the hopes of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda. The researchers said, in effect: Some of the kids are more likely to turn out gay or bisexual, but so what?

Even with all their statistical shortcomings, the parenting studies, as a whole, show that children raised in same-sex households are more likely to view homosexuality positively, try homosexuality themselves, or to suffer gender identity confusion. This makes sense; children's most important role models are their parents. If homosexual behavior is offered to them as normal on a daily basis, more of them are going to think it is normal and desirable.

In an often-quoted study by Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker, the authors note that the "large majority of children who grew up in lesbian households identified as heterosexual." But another of their findings is often ignored: "Those who had grown up in a lesbian family were more likely to consider the possibility of having lesbian or gay relationships, and to actually do so." The authors conclude that growing up in a lesbian household's "accepting atmosphere" of homosexuality "may facilitate the development of a lesbian or gay sexual orientation for some individuals. But, interestingly, the opportunity to explore same-sex relationships may, for others, confirm their heterosexual identity."

Since there is no credible scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic, it makes sense that kids exposed to parental homosexuality will tend to see it as a viable option. This is tragic, since homosexuality has well-documented health risks, especially for young men, but also for young women.

The drive for homosexual “marriage” by whatever name leads to destruction of the gold standard for custody and adoption. The question should be: “What is in the best interests of the child?” The answer is: “Place children, whenever possible, in a married, mom-and-dad household.” As homosexual relationships gain status, marriage loses its place as the preferential adoption-family option, thus short-changing children.

Defining Marriage is not “Discrimination”
Maryland’s marriage law is not discriminatory. Marriage is open to all adults, subject to age and blood relation limitations. As with any acquired status, the applicant must meet minimal requirements, which in terms of marriage, means finding an opposite-sex spouse. Same-sex partners do not qualify. To put it another way, clerks will not issue dog licenses to cats, and it is not out of “bigotry” toward cats.

Comparing current laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman with the laws in some states that once limited inter-racial marriage is irrelevant and misleading. The very soul of marriage—the joining of the two sexes—was never at issue when the Supreme Court struck down laws against inter-racial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

“How Does It Hurt You?”
Proponents of same-sex “marriage” often ask the question, “How does a gay ‘marriage’ hurt you or your marriage?’”

First, creating counterfeits undermines support in the law and culture for the real thing. Second, requiring citizens to sanction or subsidize homosexual relationships violates the freedom of conscience of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people who believe marriage is the union of the two sexes. Civil marriage is a public act. Homosexuals are free to have a “union” ceremony with each other privately, but they are not free to demand that such a relationship be solemnized and subsidized under the law.

Homosexual activists say they need legal status so they can visit their partners in hospitals, etc. But hospitals leave visitation up to the patient except in very rare instances. This “issue” is a smokescreen to cover the fact that, using legal instruments such as power of attorney, drafting a will, etc., homosexuals can share property, designate heirs, dictate hospital visitors and give authority for medical decisions. What they should not obtain is identical recognition and support for a relationship that is not equally essential to society’s survival.

The Legal and Social Fallout
Providing non-marital relationships with marital-type status will:

Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an ever-encroaching government.
Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases. Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991). A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.” (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research Council, 2001.
Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the current practice of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless households.
Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.
Pit the law and Maryland’s government against the beliefs of millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong.
Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and association. Businesses that decline to recognize non-marital relationships will increasingly be punished through loss of contracts and even legal action. This is already occurring in California and Canada.
Change the popular understanding of what marriage is and what it requires. Homosexual relationships, which usually lack both permanence and fidelity, are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong, faithful marriage, as several homosexual activists have admitted. Instead, society’s expectations of marriage will change in response to the homosexual model, thus leading to a further weakening of the institution of marriage. Some homosexual activists have acknowledged that they intend to use marriage mainly as a way to radically shift society’s entire conception of sexual morality. (See appendix.)

Conclusion
“Marriage” for same-sex couples (or the counterfeit equivalent under pseudonyms such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”) is being promoted as an extension of tolerance, equality and civil rights. But all these devices are really wedges designed to overturn traditional sexual morality and to win official affirmation, celebration, subsidization and solemnization of behavior that is harmful to the people who engage in it and to society, and that is still viewed as morally wrong by a majority of the American public.

For the well-being of children and of society, we must not allow the creation of judge-imposed counterfeit “marriage” by any name. Marriage is civilization’s primary institution, and we tamper with it at our own peril.

H.B. 48 is essential to protecting Maryland’s future generations from social engineering and the type of judicial overreach epitomized by Judge Murdock’s ruling.

Robert H. Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. Mr. Knight was a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the current law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for all federal purposes and allows states to resist demands to recognize counterfeit “marriage” licenses. Some references were drawn from “Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples ‘Marry?’” by Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council, InFocus, Number 256, August 14, 2003.

Appendix: In Their Own Words

Homosexual activists have long understood the radical power of achieving official recognition for homosexual relationships as “marriage.” Here is a sample:

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”
—Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.

* * *

“[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past.”
—Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, “Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families,” The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

* * *

"It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
—Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.

* * *

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”
—Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

* * *

And there’s this from pro-homosexual and pro-pedophile author Judith Levine:
“Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals onto the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abuse of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”
— Judith Levine, “Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough,” The Village Voice, July 23-29, 2003. Levine declines to mention that the 1972 Gay Rights Platform also called for abolishing age of consent laws. This is a curious omission since Levine herself has written in favor of lowering the age of consent to 12 for sex between children and adults in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (p. 88). (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0330/levine.php)

Reposted with permission from:

Concerned Women for America

1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: (202) 488-7000

Fax: (202) 488-0806

E-mail: mail@cwfa.org

EFA Alert, April 29, 2006

2006-05-01T09:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Two important bills are moving toward a floor vote: SJR20, the Constitutional Amendment to marriage bill in the Senate and SB20, the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill (aka Laci and Connor bill) in the House.

First, SJR20, the Constitutional Amendment to marriage bill passed the Senate Finance committee yesterday and is in Rules. The committee amended the language of the bill and I have pasted the new text at the bottom so you can see it. The next stop is the Senate floor. We need you to pray for this bill to go to the Senate floor and pass. Pray especially for Senator Ben Stevens, Lyman Hoffman, Bettye Davis and Ralph Seekins.

HJR32, the companion bill to SJR20, is still in House Judiciary Committee and I am asking you to contact every member of that committee ASAP and ask them to please pass HJR32. We especially need to contact Rep. Lesil McGuire. We also need to pray for members of this committee, members of the entire House especially minority members who are receiving much pressure to vote against the bill, and pray for Lesil McGuire, Chair of House Judiciary, pray for Majority Leader John Coghill for encouragement and for Rep. John Harris for courage and leadership through this time. There are some in the House who do not want to deal with this issue. It makes them uncomfortable and they are receiving MUCH pressure not only from Democratic leadership but from the homosexual community in Juneau. They are being bullied by the opposition who are trying to bill this as a HATE bill. Our legislators need to know we want to vote on strengthening marriage in Alaska. We do not hate anyone, we love the institution of marriage and we want to protect it.

Call these Reps. and ask them to hear HJR32 in committee and pass it.

Rep. Lesil McGuire Rep_Lesil_McGuire@legis.state.ak.us
800 365 2995

Rep. Tom Anderson Rep_Tom_Anderson@legis.state.ak.us
800 465 4939

Rep. John Coghill, JR. Rep_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us
877 465 3719

Rep. Pete Kott Rep_Pete_Kott@legis.state.ak.us
800 861 5688

Rep. Peggy Wilson Rep_Peggy_Wilson@legis.state.ak.us
800 686 3824

Rep. Les Gara Rep_Les_Gara@legis.state.ak.us
888 465 2647

Rep. Max Gruenberg, Jr. Rep_Max_Gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us
866 465 4940

Second, SB20, the Laci and Connor bill is in House Rules and is up for a vote on the House floor Monday, May 1. I believe we have the votes to pass this bill but please pray for it.

BILL ID: SJR 2000
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20(FIN)
01 Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the State of Alaska
02 relating to marriage.
03 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
04 * Section 1. Article I, sec. 25, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
05 Section 25. Marriage and related limitations. To be valid or recognized in
06 this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. No other
07 union is similarly situated to a marriage. No provision of this constitution shall be
08 construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents of marriage be
09 conferred on a union other than the union of a man and woman.
10 * Sec. 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be placed before the voters of the
11 state at the next general election in conformity with art. XIII, sec. 1, Constitution of the State
12 of Alaska, and the election laws of the state.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

If you know someone who is not getting our alerts please encourage them to sign up by emailing Debbie Joslin

EFA Alert, April 27, 2006

2006-04-28T07:42:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

I wrote the following article (The Baby Is the Victim) after testifying in the House Finance Committee hearing Wednesday. Opponents to SB20 continue to squash the truth and twist it to suit their purposes at every turn. I know I am preaching to the choir here but I thought I should share this with you. We will let you know when the floor vote is scheduled.

Don’t forget, if you are interested in getting more involved in fighting for pro-family values it is not too late to sign up for our Grassroots Lobby Training session in Juneau. Class will be held Sunday evening May 7 at the Shriner’s Hall across form the Capitol building. We will begin visiting legislators and putting our training to work on Monday morning May 8 and lobby all day. This is a spectacular opportunity and it is FREE. Let me know if you have any questions or you would like to sign up.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska
To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

The Baby is the Victim

2006-04-27T13:32:00.000-07:00

By Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

During testimony for the Unborn Victims of Violence bill, SB20, opponents of the bill pointed out that homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in America. Not only that, homicide among pregnant women in Alaska is the highest in the nation. After citing those statistics, they went on to say they don’t know why pregnant women are so often victims of violence.

In my testimony before the committee I told them why that is so. The baby is most often the primary target of the assailant. The response from opponents of the bill was quick and sure. They insisted I was wrong and the woman is the primary target though they do not know why being pregnant seems to put her more at risk for violent crime. The answer seems obvious.

The majority of these crimes are committed by someone the woman knows, usually in the same household and very often the father of the unborn baby. He’s potentially angry she got pregnant in the first place; he does not want to take responsibility for supporting or parenting the child. The law now allows him to be rid of this unwanted responsibility via abortion. If she will not cooperate and have an abortion, his rage escalates to fury and the result is a battered or dead woman whose child is at the very least injured or at worst killed and miscarried.

Abortion advocates refuse to admit the unborn child is the primary target of the perpetrator because that would point out the very troubling reality – women many times don’t get an abortion because they WANT one. In the vast majority of cases, she’s acting at the behest of someone else or she is reacting to external pressures. Those who refuse the “abortion solution” can expect to be the object of scorn and can be in grave physical danger. If we really cared about these women we would warn them that a man who has requested an abortion and is refused is potentially dangerous. A man who feels cornered by an unwanted pregnancy may be angry and can act on that anger when a woman fails to exercise her “right to choose” abortion.

Roe has allowed abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason or for no reason at all and men are frustrated when the good time looks like it could turn into a lifetime commitment to a child they never wanted and possibly to a woman they care nothing for. They can see the “easy” solution and are frustrated and unable to fathom why she will not avail herself of it.

The pro-abortion crowd continues to show they not only disregard the life of the unborn child. They disregard the life of the mother as well. The fact that she might be rendered infertile, or possibly even die from a botched abortion, or that she will be tormented with the guilt of killing her own offspring doesn’t give them pause. Their response to the Laci and Connor bill shows that they will even sacrifice her physical safety from violence and that of her unborn wanted child.

This bill is designed to protect unborn WANTED children from criminal action. The trouble is that many unborn wanted children are only wanted by the mother. They are not wanted by the man who fathered them and that is why they are targeted by a man with criminal intent.

Opponents of SB20 assert that a woman would hesitate to press charges against the man who killed or injured her unborn child. They suggested making this bill law would cause friction in an abusive relationship. This “logic” would seem to say that we do not want to criminalize his behavior for fear of further angering him. It is the crime that is wrong, not the law against it. We have laws against violence done to a woman. It is time we protected her wanted unborn child from the same acts of violence. To fail to do so puts both mother and child at greater risk.

EFA Legislative Alert, April 25, 2006

2006-04-26T08:10:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

I will keep it brief tonight. One piece of great news! House Finance Committee passed SB20, the Laci and Connor bill today. The vote was 8-3 and all debilitating amendments failed. Thank you to everyone who prayed, called and wrote. This was the last committee and the next stop is a vote on the House floor. I will keep you posted.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska
To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

EFA Legislative Alert, April 24, 2006

2006-04-25T12:56:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

I know the Alerts are coming hot and heavy but take heart – the end of the legislative session is in sight and “we will reap if we faint not”. I only pass on information that you NEED to know. Tonight we have 1) Good News 2) two state issues and 3) a federal issue.

The good news first. I asked you to contact Rep. Lesil McGuire and ask her to remove her support for HB447, Broadcasting of raffles and lotteries. I heard from Rep. McGuire this afternoon and she is removing her support for the bill. This is wonderful news for she is the sponsor of the bill and if she doesn’t support it, it is dead. We came very close to losing on this one. It was scheduled for a vote on the House floor last week before being pulled at the last minute and sent back to the Rules committee. The diligence of our Eagles kept this bill from passing the House. Thank you to everyone who prayed, called and wrote letters on this one. Another victory!!

State issues:

SB20 is scheduled for a hearing in House Finance tomorrow at 1:30 PM. I spoke with staff for Rep. Meyer and she indicated that they are getting calls on the bills, with supporters and opponents split about 50/50. BUT, they are getting an overwhelming number of emails from people who don’t like the language on the Laci and Connor bill. It is more of the same, they insist they want to protect pregnant women but they are so concerned with protecting a court decision (Roe) that they will not extend protection to the unborn from violence. If you have not contacted anyone on the Finance committee there is still time! Fax or email your testimony on SB20 to Rep. Kevin Meyer, Chair of House Finance. Be sure to ask that your testimony be made part of the record for this committee.

Rep_Kevin_Meyer@legis.state.ak.us
866 465 4945 Fax 907 465 3476

Tell Rep. Meyer you want SB20, the Laci and Connor bill, passed without amendment.

Here are a couple of talking points on the bill:

1) SB20 will allow the law to recognize two victims in cases where and pregnant woman and her unborn child are harmed.

2) 32 states have passed similar legislation and not one of those have been overturned by the courts,

3) This bill applies only to criminal acts and not to legalized abortion. This bill cannot hurt Roe.

4) Pregnant women are already protected by Alaska criminal code, SB20 will extend that right to the unborn.

Back to Rep. McGuire again. Please pray for her. She has a newborn baby and a lot on her plate as Chair of House Judiciary. Right now HJR32, the same-sex marriage benefits bill, is in her committee. We need to contact her again and ask her to schedule HJR32 for a hearing. If you need refreshed on this bill you can see our talking points for HJR32/SJR20 at SJR20

Rep_Lesil_McGuire@legis.state.ak.us
800 365 2995 Fax 907 465 6592

Federal Issue: The following is from our national office:

You all remember Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the SuperBowl two years ago. That offensive scene represents thousands of other indecent violations by our nation’s broadcasters. Unfortunately, because fines are low and enforcement is difficult, many broadcasters simply ignore the law and continue to flood our homes with all kinds of crude material. On April 14, in a new wave of arrogance, four major broadcast networks filed suit against the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) for fines issued against them. The networks now claim an unfettered right to broadcast sex and profanity, even using the f-word during the Family Hour!

Congress must stop this attack on our families! The House passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 on February 16, 2005 by an overwhelming vote of 389-38. Sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), this bill raises fines against broadcast decency violators, and strengthens the FCC’s ability to enforce those fines. The Senate continues to stall on passing the bill, giving broadcasters of indecent material just what they want.

Take Action Tomorrow!

Please call your Senators and tell them to support immediate passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act!

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

That is it for now. Thank you for all you do.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska
POBox 377
Delta Junction, AK 99737
To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

EFA Legislative Alert, April 23, 2006

2006-04-25T12:49:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Action item: SB20, Unborn Victims of Violence bill (Laci and Connor bill) will be heard Tuesday, April 25 at 1:30 PM in House Finance Committee. Two things to do:

1) Contact Representative Kevin Meyer and Rep. Mike Chenault (co-Chairs of the committee) and thank them for scheduling the bill for a hearing so quickly. Ask them to pass SB20 as soon as possible with no amendments.
Rep_Kevin_Meyer@legis.state.ak.us
866 465 4945 Fax 907 465 3476

Rep_Mike_Chenault@legis.state.ak.us
800 469 3779 Fax 907 465 2833

2) Contact all other members of the committee and ask them to vote to pass SB20 as soon as possible with no amendments. This committee has many members and I know it is a lot to ask but please call each one. They are:

Vice-Chair Rep_Bill_Stoltze@legis.state.ak.us
866 465 4958 Fax 907 465 4928

Rep_Richard_foster@legis.state.ak.us
800 478 3789 Fax 907 465 3242

Rep_Mike_Hawker@legis.state.ak.us
800 478 4950 Fax 907 465 4979

Rep_Jim_Holm@legis.state.ak.us
800 465 3466 Fax 907 465 2937

Rep_Mike_Kelly@legis.state.ak.us
866 465 4976 Fax 907 465 3883

Rep_Bruce_Weyhrauch@legis.state.ak.us
800 968 6744 Fax 907 465 2273

Rep_Beth_Kerttula@legis.state.ak.us
907 465 4766 Fax 907 465 4748

Rep_Reggie_Joule@legis.state.ak.us
800 782 4833 Fax 907 465 4586

Rep_Carl_Moses@legis.state.ak.us
800 898 4451 Fax 907 465 3445

One more thing! We just got word that Mike Pauley will be able to help teach at our Eagle Forum Alaska Grassroots Lobby Training in Juneau May 7-8. This is fantastic news. Mike has worked in D.C. and for the RNC, he worked for Lt. Governor (former Senator) Loren Leman and he is a professional paid lobbyist now. Mike has a passion for our issues and you will learn a lot from Mike on how to be most effective with the legislature. Please contact me right away to tell me you are coming to Juneau May 7-8 for our FREE training. Let me know if you have any questions.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska
To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

EFA Legislative Alert, April 22, 2006

2006-04-25T12:40:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

We have a rare opportunity to “kill two birds with one stone” so to speak. Please contact Rep. Lesil McGuire, Chair of House Judiciary and:

1) Thank her for her support of SB20, the Laci and Connor bill. She made sure the bill was picked up off the table and we want her to know we appreciate that.

2) Ask her to please kill HB447, “Broadcasting raffles and Lotteries” bill. There are varying opinions on just how bad this bill is but the general consensus is that HB447 is an expansion of gambling. The whole bill is printed below for your convenience. As you can see, there is not much to this. The bracketed language is to be deleted and the underlined language is to be added if this bill is made law. We have concerns about the ramifications of passing this bill and prefer to err on the side of safety by not allowing ANY expansion of gambling in Alaska. Please ask Rep. McGuire to continue to do what is right for Alaska families by dropping her support of this bill.

Rep_Lesil_McGuire@legis.state.ak.us 800 365 2995 Fax 907 465 6592

Don’t forget to contact me and let me know if you are interested in the FREE Grassroots Lobby Training class being offered in Juneau May 7-8. Airline flights will need to be booked soon to get the best rates and availability. We will have a training session on Sunday evening at 6:30 PM conducted by Tuckerman Babcock, Kristine Leaf, Lt. Governor Loren Leman and a few words from me (Debbie Joslin). We will visit legislators on Monday, May 8 and put our training to use. If you have an interest in being more effective in lobbying for pro-family issues you need to be there! This is a great opportunity and I don’t want you to miss it.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin

President, Eagle Forum Alaska
To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

3)

CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 447(FIN)
01 "An Act relating to the use of broadcasting to promote charitable raffles and lotteries."
02 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
03 * Section 1. AS 05.15.640(a) is amended to read:
04 (a) A person may not use broadcasting to promote or conduct a charitable
05 gaming activity under this chapter except that a person may use (1) broadcasting to
06 promote a fish derby or a type of classic [OR SWEEPSTAKES] defined in
07 AS 05.15.690, or (2) radio or television broadcasting to promote a charitable
08 raffle and lottery. In this subsection, "broadcasting" includes television and radio
09 transmission by 2,500 megahertz, microwave video and audio programming, slow-
10 scan television programming, and programming by way of [VIA] satellite, cable,
11 teletype, or facsimile transmission and distribution methods; "raffle and lottery" has
4) 12 the meaning given in AS 05.15.690.

2006-04-20T16:13:00.000-07:00

EagleForumAlaska.org has recently received a number of anonymous comments. When this site was established, we decided not to hide who we are or what we stand for. Our names, addresses, and biographical information is available for all to see. We don’t publish other people’s work as if it was our own. Most of all, we avoid writing disrespectful, distasteful or hurtful things.

We expect the same from anyone who wants to post a comment to our site. Your comments are welcome, but the site is moderated to prevent personal attacks and disrespectful language. We also expect you to have the courage to put your name to your views.

EFA Legislative Alert, April 19, 2006

2006-04-20T07:58:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Wonderful news! SB20, the Unborn Victims of Violence bill, also known as the Laci and Connor bill, passed the House Judiciary committee today 5-2. After being tabled last month we were delighted today to see the bill picked up from the table. A BIG THANK YOU goes to Representative John Coghill for his excellent defense of the bill against the many amendments offered. The bill now goes to House Finance Committee, the final referral. Thank you to everyone who prayed and called and wrote messages to get this bill moved!

Reminder: The Eagle Forum Alaska Grassroots Lobby Training session will be held in Juneau May 7-8. The class will be taught by Tuckerman Babcock, Kristi Leaf and Lt. Governor Loren Leman. If you are interested in attending, please let me know ASAP. If you cannot attend but wish to support EFA in this effort, mail your gift to:

Eagle Forum Alaska
PO Box 377
Delta Junction, AK 99737

Thank you again for your help on SB20!

Working for the family, Debbie Joslin President, Eagle Forum Alaska To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

SB20 Resolution, Unborn Victims of Violence

2006-04-11T16:42:00.000-07:00

Passed unanimously at the Alaska Republican Party State Convention in Fairbanks, April 8, 2006

WHEREAS, Violent crime against pregnant women and their unborn children is on the rise in Alaska; and

WHEREAS, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was signed into law by President Bush on April 1, 2004; and

WHEREAS, Scott Peterson was charged with the murders of both his wife, Laci Peterson, and his unborn son, Connor Peterson, under California law; and

WHEREAS, in Alaska the same crime may have been charged as one murder because Alaska law does not contemplate a violent crime against the unborn; and

WHEREAS, 30 states have passed laws to provide protection to unborn children; and

WHEREAS, when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed TWO human victims; and

WHEREAS, the Alaska state legislature has under its consideration a bill to remedy this situation; and

WHEREAS, this bill, known as the “Unborn Victims of Violence bill” (SB20), is in the House Judiciary Committee with a further referral to the House Finance Committee; and

WHEREAS, the Alaska Republican Party considers violent crime against unborn children in our state as a grievous; crime

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Alaska Republican Party does strongly urge the passage of SB20, the “Unborn Victims of Violence Bill.”

Joint Press Release, April 10, 2006

2006-04-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

Eagle Forum Alaska and Alaska Family Council

With no opposition, delegates to the Republican state convention passed a resolution urging the legislature to allow voters an opportunity to vote on whether same-sex couples be granted the same benefits as married state employees. “This really should come as no surprise as the vote by delegates is consistent with polling data and the 1998 vote to uphold marriage between one-man and one-woman,” says Jim Minnery, President of the newly formed Alaska Family Council.” Debbie Joslin of Eagle Forum Alaska agrees, “The vote to reaffirm marriage absolutely lines up with the Red State values of Alaska voters. The Republican Party will score big points with their constituents by taking a stand on this issue.” Over 300 of the Party faithful gathered in Fairbanks over the weekend to update their Platform and resolutions. Other resolutions included a stamp of approval on SB20, the Unborn Victims of Violence bill, and a call for selection and retention of judges willing to upheld and defend the ENTIRE constitution. The convention also voted unanimously to retain the pro-life plank in the Statement of Principles, the core beliefs outlined in the Party Platform.

Resolution attached.

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska
www.eagleforumalaska.org

Jim Minnery
President, Alaska Family Council
907 279 2825

WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 25 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska declares, “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.”; and

WHEREAS, the people of Alaska installed Article 1, Section 25 in the Constitution of the State of Alaska in 1998 by over 68%; and

WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska declares, “All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole.”; and

WHEREAS, the protection of marriage benefits society in general; and

WHEREAS, children are best served being raised in a traditional home with a mother and father; and

WHEREAS, the Alaska Supreme Court effectively nullified the intent of Article 1, Section 25 of our constitution in October, 2005; and

WHEREAS, the legislature has proposed that the voters of the State of Alaska should have an opportunity to nullify the effect of the recent court decision in the voting booth,

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Alaska Republican Party strongly endorses such a constitutional amendment.

EFA Legislative Alert, April 10, 2006

2006-04-11T07:22:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Three important items for you: HB272, SB20 and SJR20/HJR32

First, HB272, the Poker Room bill.
This bill was heard again on Thursday, April 6 and testimony in favor of the bill was given. The staff for the bill sponsor answered questions the committee had asked earlier. The answers were more cause for concern. The more you know about HB272, the more there is not to like. After hearing testimony, Senator Seekins asked committee members what their will was in regard to the bill. He was answered by dead silence. These Senators must have been taught the old adage, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” The response by the Chair was to announce the bill will be held in committee. In other words, not one person voted for the bill and so it dies where it is. This is a tremendous victory for families in Alaska. But do not be fooled, they will be back next year. The pro-gambling lobby has deep pockets and they are persistent. We will have to be vigilant to hold the line. Thank you to all who called and wrote legislators to stop this bill. A special thanks to those who testified. Deep gratitude goes to Pam Samash for her courageous testimony.

SB20, the Laci and Connor bill.
This bill is still on the table in House Judiciary. I have also been forwarded an alert by those opposing this bill. They urge their friends to thank the members for tabling and urge them to leave the bill to die. They keep saying they support the “intentions of the bill” but they want to simply increase the penalty for crimes committed against pregnant women. They fear that protecting WANTED babies will somehow endanger a “woman’s right to choose” to abort her Unwanted baby. The author of this alert urges her list to contact members of House Judiciary and urge them to leave the bill tabled. I know I have asked before but could you (especially if you haven’t yet) contact these members one more time and ask them POLITELY to pick SB20 off the table and pass the bill UNAMENDED from committee? By the way, the Republican Party Convention passed a resolution over the weekend urging passage of SB20 without amendments. The contact info is:

Rep. Lesil McGuire 800 365 2995
Rep_Lesil_McGuire@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Tom Anderson 800 465 4939
Rep_Tom_Anderson@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. John Coghill, JR. 877 465 3719
Rep_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Pete Kott 800 861 5688
Rep_Pete_Kott@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Peggy Wilson 800 686 3824
Rep_Peggy_Wilson@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Les Gara 888 465 2647
Rep_Les_Gara@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Max Gruenberg, Jr. 866 465 4940
Rep_Max_Gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us

The last item on the list is SJR20/HJR32, the same-sex marriage benefits bill.
The Senate version will probably sit right where it is while Senate Finance works on the PPT. The House version is likely to sit as well until SB20 is resolved. Please pray that our legislators will have a clear understanding of this issue. The Republican Party also passed a unanimous resolution supporting passage of SJR20/HJR32.

Don’t forget to check our website at http://www.eagleforumalaska.org/ to see the latest on the issues you care about. We will be posting the resolutions passed by the ARP convention and a joint press release between Eagle Forum Alaska and the newly formed Alaska Family Council. We appreciate the work they are doing and trust that we will be able to compliment each other and be stronger in our presence as we work together. If you wish to support the work we are doing, there are three ways you can help.

Pray for the work we are doing and for protection from the enemy.
If you think these alerts are helpful please help us grow our list. Pass this on to someone who is like-minded and ask them to subscribe to Eagle Forum Alaska legislative alerts. Instructions are below.
Please consider donating to Eagle Forum Alaska. We cannot continue to do the work we are doing without YOUR support. Gifts may be sent to

Eagle Forum Alaska
PO Box 377
Delta Junction, AK 99737

For more information about tax deductible giving, email Debbie Joslin.

Thank you for all you do!

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To subscribe to this alert, email Debbie Joslin

In Juneau with Senator Therriault

2006-04-09T22:01:00.000-07:00

Eagle Forum Alaska President Debbie Joslin with Senator Gene Therriault

EFA Legislative Alert, April 3, 2006

2006-04-04T08:27:00.000-07:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Updates on HB272, HB345, and HJR32. PLUS, don’t forget to vote tomorrow if you are in Anchorage.

First, HB272, the poker room bill will be heard again in Senate Judiciary. Testimony will be taken again for those who did not get to testify last time. If you or someone you know has been adversely affected by gambling, please make arrangements to call in to testify on Thursday, April 6 at 8:30 am. If you are not close to an LIO, let me know and we will try to help you call in to the committee. This bill is terrible and MUST be stopped.

Good news on HB345, the bill to raise the compulsory age of education to 17. This bill was scheduled to be heard again this week and we got word today the hearing is cancelled and will NOT be rescheduled this session. Your phone calls, emails and testimony were effective! The bill is dead!! Great job!!

HJR32 was heard in House Judiciary last week and is not scheduled again as of yet. We need to let our voices be heard loud and clear on this one. This bill is a constitutional amendment and if passed would allow the people of Alaska to vote on whether to strengthen the one-man, one-woman marriage language we inserted in 1998. This has been made necessary by the creativity of our Alaska Supreme Court which found that the “rights” of same-sex couples had been violated because they were not allowed to marry in Alaska and hence could not access the benefits of marriage. The court managed to ignore OUR rights and now we wish to exercise our right to vote to amend the constitution. The Alaska State Constitution states in the “Declaration of Rights,” Article I, Section 2:

“All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole.”

Testimony on HJR32 last week was much the same as we heard in the Senate. The argument used by those opposed to this bill is primarily that the people of Alaska can NOT be trusted with something as important as the constitution. Homosexual activists contend that such weighty matters should be addressed only by judges, legislators and doctors. Yes, you read that right, doctors!

Dr. Maureen Longworth, a Juneau doctor, testified that only those who had sworn a “sacred oath” should be allowed to decide who receives the benefit of marriage. If that name sounds familiar, it should. Dr. Longworth was a party to the lawsuit against the state that precipitated this latest attack on marriage. In her testimony Dr. Longworth never mentions her involvement in the lawsuit.

The founding fathers of our state government said that all power in government belongs to the people. Sacred oath or not. It is the right of the people of Alaska to decide the outcome of this matter. Not the courts, not the legislature, not the governor and certainly not your family physician. Dr. Longworth brought a statement from the Alaska Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) strongly opposing HJR32/SJR20. If you want to let them know you disapprove of their stand, contact the Alaska Academy of Family Physicians at akafp@gci.net. You can also talk to your own family physician and ask him or her to contact the AAFP.

If you want to help protect marriage in our state by petition, request a petition from:

Eagle Forum Alaska
PO Box 377
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Debbie Joslin.

Thank you for all you do.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To receive EFA Legislative Alerts in your inbox, send a request to Debbie Joslin.

In Support of SB193

2006-03-31T07:58:00.000-08:00

Community and Regional Affairs Committee Substitute
An act relating to a mandatory exemption for certain residences owned by a religious organization and to an optional deferral of municipal property taxes on certain primary residences

“the power to tax involves the power to destroy”
- Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

Tax exempt status for religious institutions has a long tradition in America for two main reasons. First, the threat of taxation can be used to hinder the free exercise of religion. In the case of the Anchorage Baptist Temple, pastor Prevo and Mayor Begich are known to disagree on certain moral issues. By presuming the power to tax church property, the Mayor can establish a climate of fear, in turn hindering other pastors from speaking out on those moral issues. Taken to an extreme, taxation can be used to reduce or even destroy; much the way governments have used taxation to reduce smoking across the country.

The second reason for tax exemption is an acknowledgement of the services provided by religious institutions. People who attend church are less likely to use drugs, spend time in jail or abuse their spouse, and more likely to have jobs, own homes, and volunteer in community organizations. Many churches are used as polling places or convenient locations for community-wide meetings like Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts or Alcoholics Anonymous. The parents of 550 students attending Anchorage Baptist Academy pay taxes to support public schools in addition to paying tuition for their own children, an amount much greater than would be taken in by the proposed assessment on church property.

Recognizing the importance of religion in family life and the threats to its free exercise, Eagle Forum Alaska supports tax exemptions for church property. We fully support CSSB193 (CRA) “An act relating to a mandatory exemption for certain residences owned by a religious organization and to an optional deferral of municipal property taxes on certain primary residences”.

Juneau Friends

2006-03-30T20:10:00.000-08:00

These good folks all live in Juneau and are on the front line fighting for the cause of the unborn and families in Alaska. We met for over an hour in my "office" in Juneau. It was a pleasure to meet with these good folks and be able to put faces with the names.

Left to Right: Sid Heidersdorf, Eagle Forum Alaska President Debbie Joslin, Alaskans for Life President Ida Barnack, and John Monogle.

Anchorage School Board Candidate Questionnaires

2006-03-30T18:25:00.000-08:00

Eagle Forum Alaska sent the same questionnaire to all 8 certified School Board Candidates:

SEAT E
Macon Roberts (Incumbent treasurer)
Charles Rushing
Cynthia Kott

SEAT F
Jeff Friedman (Incumbent president)
Thomas Lamb

SEAT G
Crystal Kennedy (Incumbent vice president)
Ray Metcalfe
Mike Layne

Responses will be posted as they are returned.

Cynthia Kott:

Hi Debbie,

Thanks for the questionairre. Resoundingly and overwhelmingly, I answered a definite yes on all of the issues. Your questionairre targets everything I believe as a school board member. It is my hope to use this list as a foundation to building a better school system that enhances the lives of children. The only question that was left out, was my belief that evolution is simply a minority position that needs to be combated with Truth. Creation theory needs to be applied to scientific learning if evolution is to remain, especially in light of the fact that we are in the majority.

ACADEMICS
1. Do you believe schools should give primary emphasis to teaching basic skills (e.g. reading, grammar, spelling, arithmetic) rather than social or psychological matters?

Yes

2. Do you support the use of intensive, systematic phonics to teach first-grade children how to read?

Yes

3. Do you support the goal that children should be able to read by the end of the first grade?

Yes

4. Do you support the teaching of abstinence as the norm for unmarried teenagers and as the only truly effective way to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases?

Yes

5. Do you believe the topics of homosexuality and alternative lifestyles should be excluded from the classroom?

Yes

6. Do you support teaching that the use of illegal drugs and the unlawful use of alcohol are "wrong"?

Yes

7. Do you reject classroom instruction that downgrades American sovereignty, limited constitutional government, or private enterprise?

Yes

POLICY
8. Do you support local control of education, with accountability through the local school board, rather than federal control exercised through federal and state bureaucracies and business partnerships?

Yes

9. Do you reject federal control of curriculum through the Goals 2000 and School-to-Work laws?

Yes

10. Do you oppose the establishment of school-based health clinics, which may perform examinations, provide immunizations and medications, and dispense birth control devices and abortion referrals, without parental consent or knowledge?

Yes

11. Do you oppose the collection and maintenance of data on student health, performance, attitudes, behavior, and family, as well as academics, in computerized databases?

Yes

12. Do you oppose allowing the school district to deduct money from the paychecks of school employees and forward it to political funds without the annual written consent of each employee?

Yes

PARENTS' RIGHTS
13. Do you believe in the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children?

Yes

14. Do you support a school board policy allowing parents the right to inspect and review instructional materials and methods?

Yes

15. Do you support a school board policy forbidding psychological evaluations, testing, treatment, or physical examinations of students without prior written parental consent?

Yes

16. Do you believe parental consent should be required prior to giving information and care to students regarding sexuality and reproductive health?

Yes

17. Do you oppose requiring students to answer nosy questionnaires about sex, drugs, suicide, and family behavior without prior written parental consent?

Yes

18. Do you support the right of parents to homeschool their children?

Yes

It is my priveledge, to answer these questions with heartfelt and careful consideration. I strongly believe abstinence should be taught in schools. I teach my children to honor and respect their bodies and the bodies of others. Public school curriculum details too much with sex education that starts at an early age. From a biological perspective, the actual science of reproduction being taught to a mature audience (high school) could be conducted without the overt homosexual or socialogical pressures and promotion. Our children may be prepared physically to engage in intamacy, but psychologically may not be ready. Children need to be children again.

Bonds issues have been difficult. I typically support streamlined and efficient government that doesn't overburden property owners with increased taxes and bond debt. As such, I will support some of the bonds, and certainly not all. Some of the bonds that I support deal directly with saftey and structure of schooling. Needless to say, the city must keep facilities safe for students, while not overburdening property owners. Although I believe that the ASD administration must budget better, with hesitation, I will probably vote for the schooling bonds. Most of the schools have problems (roof falling in, wavy walls damaged by water, etc..) that needs addressing. I will support the bonds primarily to facilitate the safety of are children. Some of the other bond issues are pretty rediculous and I won't vote for them.

Finally, I will support and promote the idea of Intelligent Design. Just because a minority of people have positional authority to render Judeo-Christianity obsolete and useless, does not consititute truth and factualness. In fact, a vast majority of Americans, across all spectrum of society, believes wholeheartly that God exists. It is hard to fathom the idea that matter simply "wished or happened" itself into existence, without the help and aid of an alternate source or divinity. I don't think matter can be created from nothing, and therefore, by logical conclusion there must be an alternate source or Creator to have generated molecules, atoms, etc...

Again, thank you for the e-mail. If you have any further questions, please call me (230-1569).

With Warm Regards,

Cynthia

Charles Rushing:

Thank you Eagle Forum. I said a strong "yes" to every question.

I am an ordained evangelical minister in the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination. I am also the candidate endorsed by Jack Frost forseat E.

ACADEMICS
1. Do you believe schools should give primary emphasis to teaching basic skills (e.g. reading, grammar, spelling, arithmetic) rather than social or psychological matters?

Yes

2. Do you support the use of intensive, systematic phonics to teach first-grade children how to read?

Yes

3. Do you support the goal that children should be able to read by the end of the first grade?

Yes

4. Do you support the teaching of abstinence as the norm for unmarried teenagers and as the only truly effective way to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases?

Yes

5. Do you believe the topics of homosexuality and alternative lifestyles should be excluded from the classroom?

Yes

6. Do you support teaching that the use of illegal drugs and the unlawful use of alcohol are "wrong"?

Yes

7. Do you reject classroom instruction that downgrades American sovereignty, limited constitutional government, or private enterprise?

Yes

POLICY
8. Do you support local control of education, with accountability through the local school board, rather than federal control exercised through federal and state bureaucracies and business partnerships?

Yes

9. Do you reject federal control of curriculum through the Goals 2000 and School-to-Work laws?

Yes

10. Do you oppose the establishment of school-based health clinics, which may perform examinations, provide immunizations and medications, and dispense birth control devices and abortion referrals, without parental consent or knowledge?

Yes

1. Do you oppose the collection and maintenance of data on student health, performance, attitudes, behavior, and family, as well as academics, in computerized databases?

Yes

12. Do you oppose allowing the school district to deduct money from the paychecks of school employees and forward it to political funds without the annual written consent of each employee?

Yes

PARENTS' RIGHTS
13. Do you believe in the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children?

Yes

14. Do you support a school board policy allowing parents the right to inspect and review instructional materials and methods?

Yes

15. Do you support a school board policy forbidding psychological evaluations, testing, treatment, or physical examinations of students without prior written parental consent?

Yes

16. Do you believe parental consent should be required prior to giving information and care to students regarding sexuality and reproductive health?

Yes

17. Do you oppose requiring students to answer nosy questionnaires about sex, drugs, suicide, and family behavior without prior written parental consent?

Yes

18. Do you support the right of parents to homeschool their children?

Yes

Jeff Friedman:

Thank you for taking the time to help inform the public about the positions of each candidate.

ACADEMICS
1. Do you believe schools should give primary emphasis to teaching basic skills (e.g. reading, grammar, spelling, arithmetic) rather than social or psychological matters?

Yes. I think other material is also important, but students need a firm grounding in the basics to succeed.

2. Do you support the use of intensive, systematic phonics to teach first-grade children how to read?

I believe this is what our new Houghton-Mifflin curriculum is doing, and my observation of it is that it is working very well. Teachers need to have some flexibility to use other methods if this does not work for a particular child, but this seems like a good starting place.

3. Do you support the goal that children should be able to read by the end of the first grade?

Yes, I think that is a good goal. I did not learn to read until second grade, so I realize that some children may not read by the end of first grade, but if we don’t set that as a goal, then many children who could learn to read sooner, won’t.

4. Do you support the teaching of abstinence as the norm for unmarried teenagers and as the only truly effective way to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases?

Yes, I believe that is an important part of the health curriculum.

5. Do you believe the topics of homosexuality and alternative lifestyles should be excluded from the classroom?

No. I don’t like the idea of excluding any topic. Controversial topics do need to be discussed at an age appropriate level, and care must be taken not to push any particular agenda.

6. Do you support teaching that the use of illegal drugs and the unlawful use of alcohol are "wrong"?

Yes

7. Do you reject classroom instruction that downgrades American sovereignty, limited constitutional government, or private enterprise?

I’m not sure what this question means. I think it is important to teach children the benefits of our system of government, but it is also important for them to learn that government and private business are run by humans, and humans occasionally make mistakes. That doesn’t make the system bad, it just means we have to watch and be careful.

POLICY
8. Do you support local control of education, with accountability through the local school board, rather than federal control exercised through federal and state bureaucracies and business partnerships?

Yes.

9. Do you reject federal control of curriculum through the Goals 2000 and School-to-Work laws?

I am not familiar with Goals 2000 or School to Work laws, but I believe curriculum should be a local decision.

10. Do you oppose the establishment of school-based health clinics, which may perform examinations, provide immunizations and medications, and dispense birth control devices and abortion referrals, without parental consent or knowledge?

I believe school based clinics can be beneficial, but parent consent is generally required for any medical treatment, and that should be no different for a school based clinic.

11. Do you oppose the collection and maintenance of data on student health, performance, attitudes, behavior, and family, as well as academics, in computerized databases?

No. We need to maintain some health and family records on these students such as immunization records and emergency contact information and home addresses. With a large district, these do need to be on computer databases. Discipline records are also kept on each student and they will cover behavior issues. Again, in a large district where children transfer between schools often, computerized records result in a large cost savings.

12. Do you oppose allowing the school district to deduct money from the paychecks of school employees and forward it to political funds without the annual written consent of each employee?

Undecided. It sounds reasonable to have annual reauthorization, but if an employee really wanted to make his or her authorization permanent until revoked, I am not sure why we would want to restrict that right.

PARENTS' RIGHTS
13. Do you believe in the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children?

Generally yes, but parenting is a responsibility as well as a right. Parents who have abused that responsibility may have that right restricted.

14. Do you support a school board policy allowing parents the right to inspect and review instructional materials and methods?

Yes

15. Do you support a school board policy forbidding psychological evaluations, testing, treatment, or physical examinations of students without prior written parental consent?

Yes

16. Do you believe parental consent should be required prior to giving information and care to students regarding sexuality and reproductive health?

If that information is being provided through the school, then parents should have the right to ask that their child not receive it.

17. Do you oppose requiring students to answer nosy questionnaires about sex, drugs, suicide, and family behavior without prior written parental consent?

Not if they are anonymous questionnaires. Yes if the student could be identified.

18. Do you support the right of parents to homeschool their children?

Yes, although I would like to see some form of state registration so we know those children are receiving some instruction.

Crystal Kennedy:

Thank you for the opportunity to participate with the questionnaire.

ACADEMICS
1. Do you believe schools should give primary emphasis to teaching basic skills (e.g. reading, grammar, spelling, arithmetic) rather than social or psychological matters?

Yes

2. Do you support the use of intensive, systematic phonics to teach first-grade children how to read?

Yes

3. Do you support the goal that children should be able to read by the end of the first grade?

No. I do support the goal for at least the end of third grade.

4. Do you support the teaching of abstinence as the norm for unmarried teenagers and as the only truly effective way to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases?

Yes

5. Do you believe the topics of homosexuality and alternative lifestyles should be excluded from the classroom?

Yes

6. Do you support teaching that the use of illegal drugs and the unlawful use of alcohol are "wrong"?

Yes

7. Do you reject classroom instruction that downgrades American sovereignty, limited constitutional government, or private enterprise?

Yes

POLICY
8. Do you support local control of education, with accountability through the local school board, rather than federal control exercised through federal and state bureaucracies and business partnerships?

Yes. I would like to qualify my answer though with the fact that I do belive the NCLB act is forcing us to re-evaluate our own educational practices.

9. Do you reject federal control of curriculum through the Goals 2000 and School-to-Work laws?

Yes

10. Do you oppose the establishment of school-based health clinics, which may perform examinations, provide immunizations and medications, and dispense birth control devices and abortion referrals, without parental consent or knowledge?

Yes

11. Do you oppose the collection and maintenance of data on student health, performance, attitudes, behavior, and family, as well as academics, in computerized databases?

No. Data for purposes of determining educational needs is important but access to that tata shoulc be limited.

12. Do you oppose allowing the school district to deduct money from the paychecks of school employees and forward it to political funds without the annual written consent of each employee?

Yes

PARENTS' RIGHTS
13. Do you believe in the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children?

Yes

14. Do you support a school board policy allowing parents the right to inspect and review instructional materials and methods?

Yes

15. Do you support a school board policy forbidding psychological evaluations, testing, treatment, or physical examinations of students without prior written parental consent?

Yes

16. Do you believe parental consent should be required prior to giving information and care to students regarding sexuality and reproductive health?

Yes

17. Do you oppose requiring students to answer nosy questionnaires about sex, drugs, suicide, and family behavior without prior written parental consent?

Yes

18. Do you support the right of parents to homeschool their children?

Yes

EFA Testimony in Opposition to HB272 (Poker Room Bill)

2006-03-30T18:20:00.000-08:00

March 29, 2006

My name is Debbie Joslin. I represent Eagle Forum Alaska and our over 1,000 member families. We oppose HB272 and urge members of this committee to vote against this legislation.

Warren Buffett, an internationally respected investment expert from Nebraska, says this about gambling, “Addictions produce crime. If you have a large group of people who are addicted to drugs, you’ll have more crime. If you have a large group of people who are addicted to gambling, you’ll have more crime. People get into impossible situations when they get addicted to something like that. And some people will opt for crime, some will opt for bankruptcy, some may commit suicide.”

Legalizing addictive behavior does not lessen the addictive nature of the behavior nor does providing a “safe, controlled environment” lessen the crime that is associated with such behavior.

Gaming is addictive behavior. I spoke with a number of legislators who had been lobbied by advocates for this bill. One legislator brought up the addictive nature of gambling with advocates of HB272 and was told that money and help would be provided to start a chapter of Gambler’s Anonymous in Alaska.

It would be irresponsible to expand legalization of behavior that hurts families and causes an increase in criminal behavior. We already have enough gambling in Alaska now. We do not need to open another door to addictive behavior that will harm our children and our families. The legislature has a duty to pass only laws that are for the good of the state. Clearly HB272 does not meet that requirement. Please vote NO on this bill.

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

EFA Testimony In Favor of HJR32 (Regarding Same Sex Benefits)

2006-03-30T18:14:00.000-08:00

March 29, 2006

My name is Debbie Joslin and I represent the 1,000 plus members of Eagle Forum Alaska. I live in Delta Junction. I wish to thank the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for introducing HJR32.

Since the beginning of history, marriage between one man and one woman has been recognized as special and unique. The people of Alaska thought we had made ourselves quite clear on this subject in 1998 when we voted overwhelmingly to adopt the marriage amendment as part of our state constitution. The Alaska Supreme Court has once again undermined the will of the people in their October 2005 decision. The court’s ruling to mandate the state to pay spousal benefits to same-sex partners of state employees shows no regard for the meaning and spirit of the law. The Supreme Court is supposed to be upholding our constitution but has instead chosen to attempt a rewrite by legislating from the bench.

Thank you again for introducing HJR32 to protect the rights of the people of Alaska. The meaning of the amendment in 1998 was very clear to everyone but the Supreme Court so now we are forced to spell out in capital letters that MARRIAGE IS FOR ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AND MARRIAGE IS SPECIAL AND UNIQUE FROM ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP. Passing HJR32 will allow the people of Alaska to clarify what we said in 1998 for those who did not understand.

Please pass HJR32.

Thank you.

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

EFA Legislative Alert, March 29, 2006

2006-03-30T17:58:00.000-08:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Here are some of the interesting points made in hearing on HB272, Poker room bill, today.
If passed this bill would allow poker rooms in ANY town of ANY size in Alaska. The bill leaves a number of areas wide open. For instance, there is no mention of how the operator would charge, so the ways are limited only by someone's imaginations and any regulations that might or might not be put in place. Other states, such as Washington, require closed circuit TV monitoring of activity to cut down on cheating and theft, two problems rampant in the gambling industry. HB272 does not make that requirement. There is no limit to the number of card tables an establishment could have in one location. There are no minimum or maximum wager limits. There is no mention of how a rake or a shill would be handled or regulated. These cardrooms could be operated in bars with alcoholic beverages and there is no restriction to other types of gaming that could occur in the same establishment. You could have bingo, pull tabs, and poker all in one room.

Gambling proponent, Perry Green, testified in favor of the bill. One of his more interesting arguments in favor of poker rooms is that young people are doing more and more gambling on the internet and all of that money is leaving the state and going overseas. He wants our young people's money to stay in Alaska, just not in their pockets.

There was very moving testimony by a lady from Nenana. She testified that her mother had lost everything she had to gambling. Her home, her friends, her job, her savings and her good name were all lost. Her mother is now recovering from her gambling addiction and sent word through her daughter to urge the committee not to pass HB272.

One lady in favor of the bill testified immediately after the woman from Nenana. She felt bad about the damage that gambling addiction caused these people. "But", she said, "Just because some people have addictions shouldn't mean we can't have fun."

Mention was made that we can set up gambler's anonymous chapters in Alaska. We will need that and a lot more if we are so foolish as to allow this bad idea to become a reality in Alaska.
Increased gambling hurts families and it hurts our children. It was also mentioned today that those who begin gambling at an early age are more likely to end up as addicts.

Everyone in Alaska who cares about this issue should make sure their Senatorplans to vote NO on HB272!

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To receive EFA Legislative Alerts in your inbox, send a request to Debbie Joslin.

EFA Legislative Alert, March 28, 2006 (PM)

2006-03-29T06:21:00.000-08:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

There are two important bill hearings tomorrow, Wednesday March 29.

At 8:30 AM, the Senate Judiciary committee is hearing HB272, the poker room bill. We oppose this bill and any other attempts to increase gambling in Alaska. Please let members of this committee know we want them to vote NO on HB272. The members of the Senate Judiciary are:

Senator Ralph Seekins 800 336 7383 Sen_Ralph_Seekins@legis.state.ak.us

Senator Charlie Huggins 800 862 3878 Sen_Charlie_Huggins@legis.state.ak.us

Senator Gene Therriault 800 860 4797 Sen_Gene_Therriault@legis.state.ak.us

Senator Hollis French 866 465 3892 Sen_Hollis_French@legis.state.ak.us

Senator Gretchen Guess 800 550 2435 Sen_Gretchen_Guess@legis.state.ak.us

At 1:00 PM tomorrow House Judiciary will meet. Of course we would like them to take up SB20, the Laci and Connor bill. It is not on the schedule though. HJR32, the same-sex marriage benefits constitutional amendment is. We fully support this bill. It is vital for the protection of marriage in our state that this amendment pass to proclaim the rights, benefits and privileges of marriage as being reserved only for married couples. Contact information for the House Judiciary is as follows:

Representative Lesil McGuire 800 365 2995 Rep_Lesil_McGuire@legis.state.ak.us

Representative Tom Anderson 800 465 4939 Rep_Tom_Anderson@legis.state.ak.us

Representative John Coghill, JR. 877 465 3719 Rep_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us

Representative Pete Kott 800 861 5688 Rep_Pete_Kott@legis.state.ak.us

Representative Peggy Wilson 800 686 3824 Rep_Peggy_Wilson@legis.state.ak.us

Representative Les Gara 888 465 2647
Rep_Les_Gara@legis.state.ak.us

Representative Max Gruenberg, Jr. 866 465 4940 Rep_Max_Gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us

You can go to your local LIO and sign up to testify in favor of HJR32. Testimony will be taken. It is vital that our legislators hear our side on this issue.

Talking points for this bill can be seen here.

Thank you for all you do.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To receive EFA Legislative Alerts in your inbox, send a request to Debbie Joslin.

EFA Legislative Alert, March 28, 2006 (AM)

2006-03-28T13:13:00.000-08:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

SB20, Unborn Victims of Violence bill, (Laci & Connor) was NOT heard in House Judiciary yesterday. The committee will meet again tomorrow at 1:00 PM. Please pray for good health and clear judgment for every member of that committee. Their names again are: Peggy Wilson, Lesil McGuire, Pete Kott, Max Gruenberg, Les Gara, Tom Anderson and John Coghill.

Senate Judiciary will take up HB272, the Poker room bill, tomorrow morning at 8:30 AM. Please contact me if you or someone you know have been adversely affected by gambling. We oppose this bill and will be testifying against it.
Below is a message from our national Eagle Forum office inviting REAL WOMEN to come to Washington D.C. and let their voices be heard on the abortion issue. Too often, the only voices being heard in D.C. are the shrill voices of Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and other pro-abortion women who recite the pro-abortion rhetoric and give the impression that they represent ALL women in America. This is a terrific opportunity to lobby our elected representatives in Washington and network with other pro-lifers from around the country. Details are below. If you are interested in this opportunity, please let me know.

Thank you for all you do.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To receive EFA Legislative Alerts in your inbox, send a request to Debbie Joslin.

Eagle Forum invites you to Washington, DC to join pro-Life women in person
or “in spirit” to lobby your Senators on key life-saving legislation on

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 for the
2nd Annual REAL Women’s Voices!

MORE DETAILS

Last year, Eagle Forum members from 13 states were represented and we hope to see more this year!

Now is the time for Women to make their voices heard!

The abortion lobby continues to peddle the myth that all women are "Pro-Choice" despite the fact that poll after poll shows that Americans - including women - are more pro-life than "pro-choice." Now it's time to set the country straight - and more importantly set the United States Senate straight! Abortion is harmful to women and children.

We need REAL Women’s Voices on this historic day in Washington, DC to show Congress abortion is harmful to women and children! Women can join us in person or “in spirit”.

Pro-Life Women are a powerful force in the fight to end abortion-on-demand in this country and worldwide. Now it is time for the 2nd Annual REAL Women’s Voices to ring in the U.S. Senate on key issues like embryonic stem cell research and the Child Custody Protection Act.

We are asking women to come to Washington, DC, to join pro-life women from across the country to make their voices heard for REAL Women’s Voices – a pro-life women’s lobbying day on Capitol Hill. Women can join us in person in Washington, DC or “in spirit.”

We need women to contact their Senators on April 26th as part of this historic day. REGISTER to join us in person in Washington, DC or “in spirit” by agreeing to participate from your home town on this historic day.

The all day event costs just $25 to participate or $5 for students and will include:

- Breakfast and training session, including lobbying materials

- Lobbying (we will set up meetings with your Senators office)

- Reception on Capitol Hill with Pro-Life Members of Congress and leaders of the participating organizations

“REAL” Pro-Life Women are needed on Capitol Hill to show the U.S. Senate that being “pro-woman” and “pro-life” are synonymous! Come to Washington, DC, to defend life!

Now, more than ever, women must make their voices heard. We cannot sit back and watch as life-threatening bills are passed – like the unethical embryonic stem cell research bill already passed by the House.

Please also ask women you know to take part in this historic day that is being sponsored Eagle Forum and 5 other national pro-life, pro-family groups.

Register Here

Thank you for speaking out on behalf of women and unborn babies.

Sincerely,

Lindsay Randall
Legislative Assistant, Eagle Forum

Senator Seekins and EFA President Debbie Joslin

2006-03-27T11:03:00.000-08:00

Eagle Forum Alaska President, Debbie Joslin, discusses SJR20,the same-sex marriage benefits constitutional amendment with Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair of Senate Judiciary.

EFA Legislative Alert, March 27, 2006

2006-03-27T10:50:00.000-08:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

In respect to SB20, Unborn Victims of Violence bill (Laci & Connor), I havesome thoughts to share and then I ask that after reading them you will callmembers of the House Judiciary committee and let them know how importantpassing this bill is to you. I have been waiting to send this alert and Ithink that now it is necessary to ask you to call again every member of thatcommittee except Rep. John Coghill and ask that they:

Take SB20 off the table and pass it with no amendments at the HouseJudiciary committee meeting tomorrow (3-27-06).

Remember to be polite.

Rep. Les Gara has said that he supports adding pregnancy as an aggravator in a criminal assault on a woman but he “will fight with every fiber of hisbeing” any attempt that would, in his mind, chip away at Roe v. Wade. In simple language, Rep. Gara wants the murder of a pregnant woman and her unborn child to be charged as ONE VERY BAD MURDER. We want it to be chargedas TWO MURDERS. He is concerned that passing SB20 will help to bring about the downfall of Roe v. Wade. I wish that it would, but it won’t and here is why:

· Roe v. Wade is a federal decision and there is already a federal Laci andConnor law in our country. If the federal law would not chip away at Roe then neither can the state law.

· There is concern that SB20 acknowledges the “personhood” of the unborn by protecting them from criminal assault. We already recognize the personhoodof the unborn in many other ways. We provide Denali Kid Care funding forpregnant women because we acknowledge the value of their wanted unborn child.

· Roe gives a woman the “choice” to abort an “unwanted pregnancy” but does not mandate that she do so. Because a woman has the option of aborting her “unwanted pregnancy” does not mean that she can expect no protection in the law for her “wanted pregnancy”.

· The federal Laci & Connor bill passed the U.S. Senate by 61-38. Obviously some Democrats voted for the bill and it passed easily from a body not known for being “pro-life”.

· The word “person” is legally defined differently for different purposes (sometimes as “corporations”). Even if we were to define an unborn child as a “person”, we would be prohibited by Roe v. Wade from providing protection that would challenge the rights of the pregnant mother.

Please call the following members of House Judiciary and ask them to take up SB20 and pass it with no amendments:

Rep. Pete KottToll Free: 1-800-861-5688
e-mail: Rep_Pete_Kott@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Peggy WilsonToll Free: 1-800-686-3824
e-mail: Rep_Peggy_Wilson@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Tom AndersonToll free: 1-800-465-4939fax: 1-907-465-2418
email: Rep_Tom_Anderson@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Lesil McGuireToll Free: 1-800-365-2995fax:1-907-465-6592
e-mail: Rep_Lesil_McGuire@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Les GaraToll Free: 1-888-465-2647fax: 1-907-465-3518
email: Rep_Les_Gara@legis.state.ak.us
Rep. Max GruenbergToll Free: 1-866-465-4940fax: 1-907-465-3766
e-mail: Rep_Max_Gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us

Thank you for all you do.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To receive EFA Legislative Alerts in your inbox, send a request to Debbie Joslin.

Absolute Power

2006-03-27T10:48:00.000-08:00

By Glen Biegel

The Argumentation of the Supreme Court is wrong and sets a precedent for unlimited Judicial Power:

A Same Sex Committed Domestic Partnerships (SSCDP) is equivalent to marriage in many critical respects.
The marriage amendment prevents SSCDP from becoming a marriage but not from receiving benefits.
These couples would marry if allowed and therefore be eligible for additional benefits if not prevented from doing so by the marriage amendment.
Since the marriage amendment does not address benefits and these couples could be given benefits legislatively or administratively. It is therefore facially discriminatory to pay SSCDP differently than married couples.

Each step is an improper use of judicial authority and lacks any reasonable understanding or recognition of the need for judicial restraint. In brief, the marriage amendment allows our state and city governments to differentiate between married and unmarried people, i.e. to recognize them. If prevents the court from recognizing any other relationship as equivalent to marriage. It prevents the court from ruling that a SSCDP would become married if allowed. This rumination is meaningless due to the constitution. The ruling fails to understand original intent, precedent and ignores legislative intent and enacted legislation to arrive at the ruling they wished.

The Supreme Court Ruling: ACLU vs State of Alaska and Municipality of Anchorage (S-10459), quotes from the text of the ruling:

“This case requires us to determine If it is reasonable to pay public employees who are in committed domestic relationships with same-sex partners less in terms of employee benefits than their coworkers who are married.” Page 3

Many same-sex couples are no doubt just as “truly closely related” and “closely connected” as any married couple, in the sense of providing the same level of love, commitment, and mutual economic and emotional support, as between married couples, and would choose to get married if they were not prohibited by law from doing so. Page 19

There are no references to ‘committed domestic relationships’ or ‘same-sex couples’ in current Alaska Statute. They are constructs exclusively of the Alaska State Courts.

State of Alaska Marriage Amendment states:
Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article 1 Section 25 - Marriage.
To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

What is the meaning of ‘recognized in this State’ other than to prevent the citation of a ‘committed domestic relationship with same-sex partners’ in the Supreme Court Case.

Let me illustrate the absurdity of this position with the following unconstitutional law that would be necessary to implement the important revelations of the ruling:

The State of Alaska recognizes same sex partners in committed domestic relationships as being engaged in si-marriage. Si-married couples are recognized as equivalent to married couples in every way except that they shall be called si-married and not married. All rights, benefits and legal status recognized for married couples shall be recognized for si-married couples. All legislation that refers to marriage shall be amended to recognize marriage and si-marriage. All legislation that refers to married couples shall be amended to recognize married and si-married couples. All references in law to spouses or husband and wife shall be amended to recognize si-spouses and si-partners.

Obviously, this legislation would be problematic in regards to the Constitution, but would mirror the ruling.

EFA Legislative Alert, March 20, 2006

2006-03-27T10:42:00.000-08:00

Dear Alaska Eagles and Friends:

SB20, the Laci and Connor bill, has been rescheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee today, March 20 at 1:00 PM. If you have not contacted members of this committee, it is not too late. (contact information below)

I spent three days I Juneau this last week talking to legislators about the same-sex marriage benefits issue and the Laci & Connor bill. Hearings were scheduled on both of these bills and I planned to testify on behalf of both. Unfortunately, both hearings were cancelled at the last minute. The trip was not wasted however, as I filled the time allotted for hearings with more appointments with legislators on these bills. I was also invited to a small prayer meeting with believers from Juneau, time well spent! On Friday I met with three great pro-life activists from Juneau. It was wonderful to put the faces with the names and get a chance to discuss the issues in person. There are some really great folks living in Juneau. Those who stand for right in that community are often in the minority and are in the thick of the battle.

HJR32, the same-sex marriage benefits issue bill, may still be introduced in House Judiciary later this week. I will keep you posted.

I also attended a hearing on HB477, a new gaming bill that would extend the gaming permits to two years instead of the current one-year. We oppose this bill and the reasons were evident as the Dept. of Revenue and law enforcement and even bingo operators themselves testified that HB477 would INCREASE the theft, embezzlement and fraud problems that are already problematic in the gaming industry. HB477 is a bad bill and we are hopeful it will not go far.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To receive EFA Legislative Alerts in your inbox, send a request to Debbie Joslin.

Members of House Judiciary Committee:
Rep. Lesil McGuire Rep_Lesil_McGuire@legis.state.ak.us 800 365 2995
Rep. Tom Anderson Rep_Tom_Anderson@legis.state.ak.us 800 465 4939
Rep. John Coghill, JR. Rep_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us 877 465 3719
Rep. Pete Kott Rep_Pete_Kott@legis.state.ak.us 800 861 5688
Rep. Peggy Wilson Rep_Peggy_Wilson@legis.state.ak.us 800 686 3824
Rep. Les Gara Rep_Les_Gara@legis.state.ak.us 888 465 2647
Rep. Max Gruenberg, Jr. Rep_Max_Gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 4940

I won’t pay it, Senator. (Concerning SB 112)

2006-03-23T16:54:00.000-08:00

Whereas the Constitution of the United States has no public education language within its construct,

Whereas Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska states, mistakenly in my opinion, that the state legislature “… shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the state…,“

Whereas “Open, Free and Compulsory Schooling” is an oxymoron,

Whereas the State of Alaska has presently an oil revenue surplus of approximately $1.2 billion,

Whereas compulsion and coercion have never built a good society,

Whereas education competition - CHOICE - rings truly AMERICAN in a free market republic,

Whereas technology now offers innumerable education opportunities outside of “brick and mortar” buildings which decay over time,

Whereas I rely on the Alaska Marine Highway System, local libraries, highway repairs, etc. because these offer positive, tangible outcomes - more bang for my tax buck - than do the state‘s public “schools,”

Whereas exceptional, selfless, dedicated educators and administrators who have personally shared their stories, frustrations, dilemmas and observations with me concerning this “school tax” issue over the years will hopefully take little or no offense (GULP!),

Whereas public school “per-pupil costs are roughly 40 to 45 percent higher” than those of private learning centers,

Whereas pork-barrel education with its “squabbling constituencies” is not a sound investment for my personal, meager retirement dollars,

Whereas different individuals learn differently, and the realistic, open education wake-up call in America goes far above and beyond the dying, cookie-cutter, “one-size-fits-all” oil and tax-supported mess we witness today,

Whereas the number of degrees it takes to be truly “educated” has yet to be determined,

Whereas open and honest education is vital to a free and successful society,

Whereas, in a free society, education decisions should be left up to parental and/or mature individual selection,

Whereas, in a republic of free citizens, parents should be encouraged to teach their children in environments that reflect their values without having to pay twice,

Whereas research and media continually point to compulsory government “schooling” as a major contributing factor to problems such as family breakdown, unsafe campuses, misbehavior, bullying, drug and alcohol consumption, staff-student sexual relations, administrative corruption, intimidation and manipulation, pill-pushing, teen pregnancy as well as psychological and emotional distress,

Whereas it’s not the government’s responsibility to train up my children,

Whereas coercing children into mediocre-at-best public “schools” is not in their best interests and smacks of bounty-hunting-for-tax-dollars,

Whereas research shows that parent expectations are significant predictors of children’s educational outcomes,

Whereas warm, caring family structure bears directly and positively on educational success,

Whereas parents who find it difficult to “pay” for so-called “free” education may be better off bartering or trading for private tuition and other related courses and costs,

Whereas smaller, parent-led alternatives and more specialized academic centers seem to be working and in demand,

Whereas “schooling,” aided and abetted by the National Education Association, its associates, lobbyists, and certain elected officials at federal, state and local levels, has taken a critical turn-for-the-worse, fostering a chronically self-serving agenda, oft-times disassociated with reading, writing, and arithmetic,

Whereas the “herding” approach and constant answering to a bell may work for mice, these methods tend to stifle intellectual growth and the free and open sharing of ideas in human beings,

Whereas, as well-meaning as some teachers and administrative staff are, this citizen believes public “schooling” damages the parent-child relationship in many instances by FORCING children out of the family home prematurely into the hands of strangers and by FORCING them to stay away from home as a literal “captive audience” beyond their time or interest, leading to cultural rot or to the forgetting or replacing of cultural values and family priorities,

Whereas it is my conviction that subject mastery is key, “schooling” is for fish, and “grading” is best left for produce and dairy products,

Whereas it is my conviction that we citizens must learn and practice self-discipline and self-sufficiency as much as is humanly possible,

Whereas government should be our last resort,

Whereas I share this village with approximately 800 other inhabitants, with only two miles of paved road, on an island in the Pacific Ocean, and am easy to find in case of arrest for non-payment, thus non-compliance, of this unnecessary, manipulative and obtrusive “tax,”

Therefore, be it resolved, that I, Rory (Rosemary) Schneeberger, a non-partisan, independently-minded voter, presently residing in a tiny trailer on the bear path at 478-F Airport Highway in Hoonah, Alaska, refuse to pay, should it become law, this “tax” proposed in SB 112, supporting the public school monopoly. I proclaim publicly that I favor ending government involvement in education.

You know where to find me. I’ll go peaceably. Please leave me my books.

Red Alert!

2006-03-23T16:13:00.000-08:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:

I received an urgent call from Juneau this morning. SB20, the Unborn Victimsof Violence Bill, (Laci and Connor) will be heard TOMORROW AT 1:00PM.

THERE IS AN EFFORT UNDERWAY TO HIJACK THIS BILL AND MAKE IT INTO A CRIMEAGAINST PREGNANCY INSTEAD OF THE UNBORN. WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN! WE MUSTMAKE THE PHONES RING OFF THE HOOK TODAY!

REMEMBER TO BE POLITE.

HERE IS THE MESSAGE:

PLESE PASS SB20 WITHOUT AMENDMENTS. WHENEVER A CRIME AGAINST A PREGNANT WOMAN AND HER UNBORN CHILD IS COMMITTED, THERE ARE TWO (STRESS THAT NUMBER) TWO VICTIMS.

THE MEMBERS OF HOUSE JUDICIARY WHO MUST HEAR FROM US IN A BIG WAY TODAY ARE:

Rep. Lesil McGuire Rep_Lesil_McGuire@legis.state.ak.us 800 365 2995
Rep. Tom Anderson Rep_Tom_Anderson@legis.state.ak.us 800 465 4939
Rep. Les Gara Rep_Les_Gara@legis.state.ak.us 888 465 2647
Rep. Max Gruenberg, Jr. Rep_Max_Gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 4940

PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO YOUR LIST AND CALL TODAY!

THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HELP!

Working for the family,

Debbie JoslinPresident, Eagle Forum Alaska

Same-Sex Benefits (SJR20 and HJR32) Sponsor Statement

2006-03-21T08:25:00.000-08:00

Dear Eagles and Friends:
Below is a copy of the Sponsor statement from Senator Ralph Seekins forSJR20, the same-sex marriage benefits bill. Keep up the phone calls and emails to the legislators, especially focus onSenator Gary Stevens, Rep. Paul Seaton and members of the House JudiciaryCommittee and Senate Finance Committee. Contact information is listed below.
One more important item is HB272, the Poker Room bill. Senate JudiciaryCommittee has scheduled a hearing for this bill at 8:30 AM on Thursday,March 23. Please contact members of this committee and tell them to vote noon this bill.
Working for the family,Debbie JoslinPresident, Eagle Forum Alaska
To subscribe/unsubscribe to this alert, send email to joslin@wildak.net

"The Constitution was conceived, written and approved by the people. Itbelongs to the people – not to the courts. Clearly, the right to clarify itsmeaning when challenged by the courts belongs to the people."- Sen. Seekins

Senate Joint Resolution 20 is presented to allow the people to address afundamental question that has been the subject of a number of court casesdating back to the early 1990s. These cases challenged Alaska’s right toreserve marriage to the union of one man and one woman and thereby torestrict the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities and effects ofmarriage to legally married Alaskans.
The legislature believed the matter was settled in 1996 when it passed whatis commonly called the Alaska Defense of Marriage Act. 1 This Act providedthat in Alaska a marriage is between one man and one woman. Furthermore, theAct specified that Alaska would not recognize foreign marriages that are nototherwise legal under Alaska law and that benefits of marriage extend onlyto legally married Alaskans. 2
Then, in February 1998, an Anchorage Superior Court judge ruled that, aswritten, Alaska's Constitution provides a fundamental right for same-sexcouples to marriage. 3 The Court ordered further hearings to determinewhether a compelling state interest could be found to deny same-sex marriagein the Alaska Marriage Code.
As a result, a significant number of Alaskans believed the Court hadtrespassed into the people's prerogative. Consequently they sought astronger defense of marriage through a constitutional amendment. Theyreasoned that only through a constitutional amendment could the matter beresolved with any finality. A super majority of the legislature 4 agreedand a proposition was placed on the 1998 general election ballot.
In November of 1998 Alaska's people voted – by a substantial margin 5 - toamend their Constitution. What is commonly called the Marriage Amendmentreads:
Section 1.25 – Marriage. To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriagemay exist only between one man and one woman.
It was generally believed adoption of the Marriage Amendmentconstitutionally reserved marriage to the union of one man and one woman andtherefore the pathway to the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities andeffects of marriage was closed to anyone who was not legally married.
Seven years later, in October of 2005, the Alaska State Supreme Courtcorrectly noted that the text of the Marriage Amendment effectivelyprohibits same-sex domestic partners from marrying in Alaska and that iteffectively denies recognition in Alaska to foreign marriages betweensame-sex couples. 6
However, the Court also held that the Marriage Amendment does not explicitlyaddress the topic of spousal benefits. In fact, the Court went so far as tosay, "spousal limitations in benefit programs are unconstitutional, and theyare invalid only to the extent they deny benefits to persons who areabsolutely precluded from becoming eligible for those benefits (same-sexunions), even though their domestic relationship is not legal."
To many Alaskans, the Court's reasoning conflicts with their ownunderstanding of what the Marriage Amendment would accomplish when they wentto the polls in 1998. Their conception was that if marriage was restrictedto one man and one woman, only legally married Alaskans would be eligiblefor spousal benefits.
None believed the Amendment would ever be used to rule, as the Court did,that spousal limitations vis-à-vis benefit programs are "unconstitutional".None believed that the people themselves – by voting for the MarriageAmendment – forced the Court to treat same-sex couples as if they arelegally married, as the Court now asserts. 7 None believed it would ever benecessary to revisit this issue.
The Constitution was conceived, written and approved by the people. Itbelongs to the people – not to the courts. Clearly, the right to clarify itsmeaning when challenged by the courts belongs to the people. Senate JointResolution 20 allows the people themselves to determine whether or not theyintended in 1998 – and still intend today – to confine the rights, benefits,obligations, qualities and effects of marriage to legally married Alaskans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Senate Bill 308 – 19th Alaska State Legislature.
2 Sec. 25.05.011. Civil Contract.
Marriage is a civil contract entered into by one man and one woman thatrequires both a license and solemnization. The man and the woman must eachbe at least one of the following:18 years of age or older and otherwise capable;qualified for a license under AS 25.05.071; ora member of the armed forces of the United States while on active duty.A person may not be joined in marriage in this state until a license hasbeen obtained for that purpose as provided in this chapter. A marriageperformed in this state is not valid without solemnization as provided inthis chapter. (§ 1 ch 58 SLA 1963; am § 9 ch 245 SLA 1970; am § 92 ch 127SLA 1974; am § 1 ch 28 SLA 1975; am § 1 ch 21 SLA 1996)Sec. 25.05.013. Same Sex Marriages.
A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common lawor under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreignjurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtueof the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state.A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitledto the benefits of marriage. (§ 2 ch 21 SLA 1996).
3 Brause and Dugan v. State of Alaska. This case was dismissed followingpassage of the Marriage Amendment.
4 A 2/3 majority of the legislature is required to place a constitutionalamendment on the ballot.
5 A 69% majority voted in favor of amending the State's Constitution.
6 ACLU v. State & Municipality of Anchorage (10/28/2005) sp-5950.
7 Footnote 38 to the ACLU decision states in pertinent part: "We recognizethat the benefits became discriminatory only after the legislature acted in1996 and 1998 and the electorate adopted the Marriage Amendment in 1998."
House Judiciary Committee:
Rep. Lesil McGuire Rep_Lesil_McGuire@legis.state.ak.us 800 365 2995

Rep. Tom Anderson Rep_Tom_Anderson@legis.state.ak.us 800 465 4939

Rep. John Coghill, JR. Rep_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us 877 465 3719

Rep. Pete Kott Rep_Pete_Kott@legis.state.ak.us 800 861 5688

Rep. Peggy Wilson Rep_Peggy_Wilson@legis.state.ak.us 800 686 3824

Rep. Les Gara Rep_Les_Gara@legis.state.ak.us 888 465 2647

Rep. Max Gruenberg, Jr. Rep_Max_Gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 4940
member of Senate Finance Committee:
Sen. Lyda Green (R), Co-Chair(907) 465-6600Senator_Lyda_Green@legis.state.ak.us
Sen. Gary Wilkin (R), Co-Chair(907) 465-3709 Senator_Gary_Wilkin@legis.state.ak.us
Sen. Con Bunde (R), Vice-Chair(907) 465-4843Senator_Con_Bunde@legis.state.ak.us
Sen. Fred Dyson (R)(907) 465-2199Senator_Fred_Dyson@legis.state.ak.us
Sen. Bert Stedman (R)(907) 465-3873Senator_Bert_Stedman@legis.state.ak.us
Sen. Lyman Hoffman (D)(907) 465-4453Senator_Lyman_Hoffman@legis.state.ak.us
Sen. Donny Olson (D)(907) 465-3707mailto:465-3707Senator_Donny_Olson@legis.state.ak.us

Written Testimony to the Senate Finance Committee

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska
Testimony for SJR20
Senate Finance Committee Hearing
March 9, 2006

In 1998 the people of Alaska voted by a majority of almost 70% to add to the state constitution that marriage is only between one man and one woman. In October 2005 the Alaska Supreme Court was asked to decide whether homosexual couples were being discriminated against because they were denied one of the privileges of a married couple. The answer was clearly no. Our constitution stated that marriage is something that can only be entered by one man and one woman. The Alaska Supreme Court decided that case in favor of the plaintiffs based on their own personal opinions. Their decision was in direct violation of the will of the people of Alaska and our Constitution. The question before the legislature today is whether or not to allow the people of Alaska to have a chance to clarify what was put into the constitution in 1998. We thought the wording was clear but the court ignored the marriage amendment. There is ample evidence to believe that the people of Alaska do not agree with the court. You, our elected representatives in this government have been appointed to represent the will of the people and as such we ask you to allow us to weigh in on this subject. The people who are testifying against this bill are not hurt by its passage. They will have the right to voice their opinions on the November ballot too.

You are being told that the issue here is discrimination because of the equal protection clause. That is clearly wrong. No one is being discriminated against. Our society has always held that marriage is for the public good. Marriage has been the preferred relationship since the beginning of man. It is in marriage that children are born and reared in the best way possible for society. Marriage is for the good of our children and should be protected along with its rights, privileges and responsibilities. Children raised by a mother and father are healthier are healthier and happier.

State statute holds that certain criteria must be met before issuing a license to practice medicine or law in this state. Am I being discriminated because I am not allowed a license to practice law or medicine? Certainly not. My equal protection is not being infringed on. I do not possess the qualifications for these licenses and neither do homosexual couples possess the qualifications of marriage nor should they be entitled to its benefits. That is not discrimination; it is merely a fact.

This legislature is duty bound to uphold the will of the people. The people spoke loud and clear in 1998 and we wish to have the opportunity to reiterate what we said then. Please pass SJR20 and allow us that right.

Gambling Hearing March 23rd

2006-03-20T14:19:00.000-08:00

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on HB 272 which would legalize commercial gambling in the state in the form of card rooms. The hearing is set for 8:30am on Thursday March 23rd. Please visit your Local Information Office (LIO) and testify against this bill, especially if you have been adversely affected by gambling and know the addictive effects of card room gambling. Your nearest LIO can be found at http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/legaff/liolist.htm.

From the 2004 Dept. of Revenue Annual Report of Gaming Group Operations:

"Gaming in Alaska is big business. In calendar year 2004, the total amount gamed by the public exceeded $355,000,000.00 [that's 355 MILLION DOLLARS!]. After prizes were paid out, approximately $84,000,000 was available for gaming expenses and net proceed to benefit municipalities and qualified organizations.

In general, gambling is illegal in Alaska. However, the legislature created an exception for what is commonly, though somewhat inaccurately, referred to as "Charitable Gaming". The use of the word "charity" is really a misnomer. An organization does not have to have any charitable purpose in order to have a gaming permit. The Department may only issue a permit to a municipality or qualified organization and charities represent only on of the fifteen kinds of "qualified organizations" eligible to game in Alaska."

The types of activities referred to as "gaming" are:

Pull Tabs - 76.8% of the gaming, taking in $262 million in 2004
Bingo - 19.6% of the gaming, taking in $67 million in 2004
Raffles - 2.8% of the gaming, taking in $9.5 million in 2004
Others (derbies, betting on ice, rain, salmon, dog mushing, etc) - .7% of gaming, taking in $2.5 million in 2004

Gambling is an addictive behavior with similar effects on the brain of alcohol and other drugs. It robs money from families who typically do not have much to begin with. Gambling contributes to erosion of the family, often leading to domestic violence toward women and children, increased poverty and child neglect.

The Republican Party Platform contains a plank with reads:

"HEALTH & FAMILY
F. We believe any expansion of gaming in Alaska is detrimental to our families and society. "

This plank was added at the 2004 State Convention with an overwhelming majority vote of the delegates. The Republican State Central Committee passed a resolution in September 2005 to remind Republican legislators of this plank and to urge them to uphold the Republican Party platform. Therefore, no Republican legislator should be sponsoring or voting in favor of such legislation.

Please write to the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them to VOTE NO on HB 272 when the bill is heard on March 23.

Senate Judiciary members:

Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair (Republican)
senator_ralph_seekins@legis.state.ak.us

Senator Charles Huggins (Republican)
Senator_Charlie_Huggins@legis.state.ak.us

Senator Gene Therriault (Republican)
senator_gene_therriault@legis.state.ak.us

Senator Gretchen Guess
senator_gretchen_guess@legis.state.ak.us

Senator Hollis French
senator_hollis_french@legis.state.ak.us

To access the Dept. of Revenue Annual Report on Gaming, go to www.tax.state.ak.us

Same-Sex Benefits (SJR20 and HJR32) Talking Points

2006-03-20T10:31:00.000-08:00

In 1998 the voters of Alaska voted overwhelmingly to protect marriage in Alaska and passed the one man-one woman marriage constitutional amendment. This was made necessary as homosexual activists aided by the ever-helpful Alaska Supreme Court attempted to misinterpret the Constitution’s silence on this subject as meaning that marriage was open to same-sex unions. At that point, the legislature crafted the Marriage Amendment and placed it on the ballot to see what the will of the people was. Sure enough, Alaskans affirmed that marriage was only between one man and one woman. The 1998 amendment used clear succinct language and could be misinterpreted by no one who understands the meaning of “is”. That should have been the end of the matter.

Well, you guessed it, the Alaska Supreme Court doesn’t back down easily. In October 2005, the court got the chance they had waited for. If the front door wouldn’t work, they would try to jimmy the back door. The court ruled that the state of Alaska must pay spousal benefits to domestic same-sex partners of all state employees. How can you do that when the constitution clearly states that marriage is for only one man and one woman? They used the equal protection clause, which states in part, “all Alaskans are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Funny, we thought they didn’t know that clause was in the constitution. It turns out the Alaska Supreme Court has selective memory.

This is where the Legislature steps back into the picture. Some, including the media, have unfairly characterized the legislators as trying to “change the constitution”. Sorry, the Court has already filled that role. What the legislature is trying to do through SJR20 and HJR32 is CLARIFY the constitution.

This is what SJR20 and HJR32 will put on the ballot: “To be valid or recognized in this state, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. No other union is similarly situated to a marriage between a man and a woman and, therefore, a marriage between a man and a woman is the only union that shall be valid or recognized in this State and to which the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage shall be extended or assigned.” Underlined text is new language.

Here are some talking points for this bill:

This ballot initiative would give the people of Alaska an opportunity to reiterate what almost 70% of the voters said in 1998 when we passed the one-man one-woman marriage amendment to the constitution.

This is not an attempt to change the constitution. SJR20 and HJR32 are in complete agreement with what is already in the Alaska state constitution. It was the Alaska Supreme court that tried to change the constitution.

The union of a man and a woman in marriage has been accepted as foundational in every lasting society. Marriage is a private contract entered into by one man and one woman for the public good of society.

Those who are concerned that “everyone should have benefits” should consider moving to a socialist country where everyone has the same benefits, or lack thereof.

The court decision rendered by the Alaska Supreme court does not give benefits to “everyone”, only to same-sex couples. This decision placed cohabitating same-sex couples on the same level as married couples.

Preserving marriage and the benefits of marriage does not violate equal protection any more than gender-specific restrooms.

If homosexual couples want health benefits, they should lobby the state legislature to fund health benefits for homosexual couples. However, there is nothing in the state constitution that mandates the state to pay spousal benefits to homosexual couples.

Passing this legislation does not change the constitution; it gives the people of Alaska an opportunity to vote on whether to change the constitution.

Laws that promote marriage between one man and one woman to the exclusion of any other are supported by compelling governmental interests in the preservation of society and the public good.

To vote against HJR32 and SJR20 will deny the people of Alaska their right to vote on this issue.
Passing this legislation does not hurt those who disagree with us. They may vote no when it appears on the ballot in November.

If we fail to amend the constitution and the court decision is left to stand, the next step for homosexual activists will be to force the private sector to pay spousal benefits to homosexual couples. The October 2005 court decision put the pieces in place for that to happen.

Written Comments for Gaming Commission Task Force

2006-03-20T08:19:00.000-08:00

from Debbie Joslin, President, Eagle Forum Alaska

I represent Eagle Forum Alaska and our over 1,000 member families. We oppose the formation of a Gaming Commission. Everyting I have read leads me to believe that the purpose for forming this commission would be to establish an infrastructure to allow for the expansion of gaming in Alaska. We oppose any gaming expansion in Alaska. We feel much more comfortable leaving gaming under the jurisdiction of the legislature. Having an appointed commission that cannot be voted in/out by the people is unacceptable as it leaves the citizens of Alaska without any real representation in this process. With all that is going on in the state right now it seems irresponsible to establish yet another commission in anticipation of an activity that is unwanted by the majority of Alaskans.

If, however, one were to be formed (keep in mind we don't want one), we would want to have at least one or two positions on the commission from gambling watchdog groups, familiy advocates or someone from the church to represent the rights and concerns of families.

Families in Alaska do not want expansion of gaming nor a gaming commission.

Debbie Joslin

President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Eagle Forum Alaska: What is Eagle Forum Alaska

2006-02-11T13:21:00.000-08:00

Eagle Forum Alaska: What is Eagle Forum Alaska

What is Eagle Forum Alaska

2006-02-11T11:38:00.004-08:00

Mission Statement

Eagle Forum's Mission is to enable conservative and pro-family men and women to participate in the process of self-government and public policy-making so that America will continue to be a land of individual liberty, respect for family integrity, public and private virtue, and private enterprise.

President Debbie Joslin Biography

Mrs. Debbie Joslin resides in Delta Junction, Alaska with her husband and their four children. She is a full-time homemaker and home schooling mom. Mrs. Joslin is the former National Committeewoman for Alaska on the Republican National Committee and she sat on the Republican Party of Alaska Central and Executive Committees for eight years and served two years on the Alaska State Medical Board as a public member. Debbie Joslin is also the President of Eagle Forum Alaska and the Alaska Eagle Forum Educational Foundation.